Motherfucking Patlabor is coming true. http://www.popsci.co

>>13614497

Gunpla Build Fighters. Ironically, in the future it'll be classed as a real robot show and be the most realistic Gundam show.

>>13614497
Something like Winspector and Solbrain will probably happen for the SWAT team, and possibly even in our lifetimes. The US Military is already experimenting with combat suit type power armor, and it may very well be possible that artificial intelligence will advance enough that we can have robots as force augmentation. No one would trust robot cops solo though, so they'd have to be supervised by an officer, much like Winspector has.

File: 444-1.png (296KB, 692x432px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 692x432px

I wouldn't be surprised if Construction Suspension Order happened eventually, banana republic, bureaucracy and all.

File: tumblr_ngb0nimBxv1tfza0go1_540[1].jpg (79KB, 502x616px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 502x616px

Just need to mount some guns on them and we will be one step closer to Shadowrun.

>the first dedicated air to air combat drone is equipped with a fucking net as it's weapon.

A bit disappointing.

>>13615874

Why? it'd be rather effective as once the rotors are clogged/broken, the drone is little more than a paperweight

Plus once its back at home base, the signal could be backtraced to the user - a far more useful prospect than just blowing it out of the sky

(also, do you really think the Tokyo mpd would allow a gun toting drone to fly as part of its force? the Americans might though so the cops could sit eating donuts while shooting black people :p)

>>13614686
i can't wait to be a cyberdwarf

>>13616361
Better get studying on virology and gene drives if you want the HMHVV to happen. Might be easier to just knock over the Pyramids, Stonehenge, and all those other Ley-Line-Nexus-capping monuments and unleash the Rifts instead.

>>13614497

PATDRONE

>>13614497
THE ONLY THING THAT STOPS A BAD DRONE IS A GOOD DRONE WITH A NET

>>13614497
>tfw in 10 years drone piracy will be a thing

I can't wait for the age of destroying drones carrying supplies to other people's homes and looting them for my own gain.

>>13616676
if we ban nets only the criminals will have nets

>>13616678
Honestly the first thing I thought of when I heard that they were thinking of using drones to deliver pizzas was drunk fratboys trying to hang from them of someone's cat pouncing on one and getting diced.
It never actually occurred to me to steal a pizza from one.
But last I heard the US regulations for commercial drone flight required the operator to have line-of-sight on the drone at all times which means they won't be using them for deliveries since they have to send a person out with it anyway.

>>13616699
I wonder what the legality of carrying a net around is. I've always thought it was odd that you can get licensed to carry a concealed handgun but you can't get licensed to openly carry a sword, axe, baseball bat, etc. I've even had a cop tell me that I couldn't have one of those 9v battery powered stun-guns on the dash of my car and that you can't just carry one around even though it's designed to NOT cause damage to anyone.
I wouldn't be surprised if carrying a net is already banned, too.

File: Joustarcadegame.png (19KB, 300x235px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x235px

>>13614497
>the future of combat is Joust

>>13616678
Are you in the police forces?

>>13615874
Quadrotors don't take well to their rotors getting tangled, news at 11.

>>13616717
It's something to do with intent. I think carrying a net is safe, at least if you live in an area with a fishing economy, since it'd be unreasonable to assume owning a net implies criminal intent. At least, that's how I assume it'd work here in Maryland where criminal intent defines what you can and can't carry on you.

Like lockpicks. Totally ok to possess them in MD until you demonstrate criminal intent, something about the inherent ambiguity of "burglary tools" and how you can't slam a person just because they happen to own a crowbar or something of the sort.

>>13616717
>it's designed to NOT cause damage to anyone.
That's wrong. It's designed to cause less damage than a bullet. You can still kill people or give them lifetime heart trouble if you use it badly.

>>13617342
Look at it this way, though:
I'm a construction worker. Any given day that I'm out of my house there's a 70% chance that I have a two pound hammer on my hip. I have a 24" crowbar, wrenches, pliers, screwdrivers, etc, all on my belt. If you, as an attacker, could choose whether I would attempt to defend myself with a 10" screwdriver, a 24" crowbar, a two pound claw hammer, or a stun-gun, which would you prefer?
If I don't have the right to carry the nonlethal stun gun, I have to resort to tools that will cause skull fractures and deep torso puncture wounds. Honestly, I'd much rather be able to zap an attacker in the thigh/deltoid/trapezius than have to skull them with a crowbar. It's not only less likely to get me a murder charge, it's also faster.
But it's not legal for some reason I do not comprehend.
>>13617287
>>>/pol/

>>13617397
Most people aren't construction workers. And a law fine-tuned to specifically exclude construction workers, weightlifters and cartoon rabbits would be problematic in many ways.

/k/ here

So the FAA in their infinite incompetence. Thinks they can solve people flying their drones where they shouldn't, by requiring them to be registered. I don't know how that solves anything at all unless the police looking for the miscreant drone pilot find the drone landed somewhere away from the pilot. Even then the state would have to prove it was his or her drone that was in the no fly zone and not someone else's. Then you have the issue of what qualifies as a drone that needs registering. There are going to be over a million quadrotor like remote controlled machines sold this year. Some will be cheap childrens' toys and others will be super expensive 8 rotor professional camera platforms.

>>13616628
>>13616361
> "Today a crazed middle age white man is caught attempting to blow up Stonehenge"
>"Although we couldn't interview the man himself we could hear his screams while being taken away by UK's police"
>"OMAE! I bet the Harlequin put you up to this! Fucking Mary Sue!"

>>13617430
Drone registry numbers to prove ownership
Anything with a built-in camera or camera carrying capacity and ability to fly above 300 feet. Hypothetically of course.

>>13617397
>murder charge
>self defense
You are literally not allowed to be charged you fucking idiot. Do you not know your rights AT ALL?

>>13617513
>no one gets charged for bs like excessive self defense

File: actually.jpg (20KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x300px

>>13617430
>Thinks they can solve people flying their drones where they shouldn't, by requiring them to be registered.
Not at all. There's no way to stop "people" from flying these things into the paths of landing passenger aircrafts, the registration's just to make tracking and punishing enough of the dumbasses possible to deter the rest of them.

Really, laws don't stop people from doing dumb shit, they just stop enough of them to keep the overall damage within reasonable range. Like two aircrafts going up in flames annually rather than airports all over the US becoming unsafe for use due to civilian quadcopters.

>>13617526
Do you live in a former commonwealth nation or a free country
Because no, you don't. Zimmerman was an outlier.

>Drones being more strictly controlled.
>Meanwhile little cars that can reach speeds of over 70mph and are filled with very flammable fuel require nothing to buy or operate.

>>13617563
the gps circuitry used in smartphones can not be that expensive.

they could just mandate that be built into any "drone" that is clearly not a child's toy. then program it not allow the drone to operate above 400 feet above ground level or with in the controlled airspace of a airport.

>>13617588
little rc cars can not get sucked into the jet engine of a passenger vehicle carrying hundreds of people. causing it to potentially crash and kill everyone and hundreds of millions in damage.

>>13617613
Little cars also have very little use when it comes to spying on military installations.

>>13617599
A good quarter of drones are built from scratch by the pilot, hoss. Not gonna work.

>>13617648
people that build their own are probably less likely to be flying where they shouldn't. the offenders seem to be mostly casuals flying those cheep chinese quadrotors.

>>13614497
I love patlabor.

>>13616343
>>13616733

Well of course it will WORK, and might even tangle up the drone so it doesn't fall on stuff, saving everybody a bit of headache, especially anyone who would otherwise be unfortunate enough to have a fucked up drone fall on their head.

It's just not tight as hell like blasting the fucking thing out of the sky would be.

>>13617599
>then program it not allow the drone to operate above 400 feet above ground level or with in the controlled airspace of a airport.
Already happening/happened.
www.theverge.com/2015/1/28/7927423/dji-drone-no-fly-white-house-d-c

>>13617430
>what are jammers

classic /k/

>not installing soldiers with surface-to-air missiles stationed at the end of every street to blast them out of the sky

>>13617578
No, you're a retard. Not every state has things like castle laws, meaning even if you get broken into you cannot use lethal defence.

So the net tangles up the drone's propellers but then what? I can picture the example drone be able to stay stable if it catches a smaller drone but if the drone they want to catch is in the same weight they'll need something even bigger.

>>13617397

Jesus just learn to grapple nigger. Tackle a fool and tie him in nots and you won't have to worry about accidentally killing. If you have a black belt or equivalent in your chosen art you can't use it thoughbecause you would be considered a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law

File: image.jpg (74KB, 333x329px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 333x329px

>>13622101
If your attacker is armed, Karate isn't going to protect you from a bullet, especially during a mass shooting.