Okai, You're really well informed.

When I said "Intuition" and "Curiosity" I speak in figured mode.

Real Intuition and Curiosity are a dream for the AI, as the feelings, but an
UAV/UCAV whats need is a mechanism to catch interest point, not need to be
precise, the precision helps to low the data to be transmitted, a sensor in
an UAV can do thousands of chemical analysis on an area, process the data
with the pre-recognition and establish priorities to transmit, is only one
of many mechanisms, of course the exact process is a secret.

I know the problem with the smoke, the fog and the lasers, as the RF
jamming, but if an UAV/UCAV couldn't communicate on an area, the same
jamming affect to the comanche's crew. What the commanche crew will do?,
well to fly to a zone where the jamming has no effect and to transmit. But a
commanche needs to fly very low, to reach an free jamming area and needs to
fly a long and dangerous path. an UAV can do the same strategy, but an UAV
will only need to fly to a higher altitude, (because are hard to detect can
do it, the comanche can't fly as high as an uav and have a larger section),
then a laser or mw datalink can work w/o jamming.

Need more explications? More data?
- Sorry is classified.

I have no time for PopularScience and other publicationsm I only can say I'm
well informed.

Hurts, but was the right choice.


DumDum wrote in newspr4a55mgc2nlmxq@localhost:


You didn't know the performance of modern anti-jam transmitters,
also
Laser Beam Transmitter couldn't be jammed,...

Really? Do you have the faintest idea what "smoke" is? And
unfortunately, open-air laser transmission is a "line-of-sight"
communication, which not only requires a straight line between the two
transmitters, but also enough power (before you even start spouting the
word "satellite") to effectively reach between them. AND THEN you need the
ability to hold target on your receiver with enough accuracy to maintain
communication. Wanna tell me about laser-guided bombs and accuracy? Feel
free - I'll show you the reports of the ones that missed when the
transmission blipped. And then point out how your 'target' on a satellite
based communication system is the relative size of a grain of sand in
comparison, and not only does the UAV have to maintain the target of a
satellite while jinking around in a combat zone, but the satellite has to
maintain the UAV as a target. How do you suspect it'll do that?


,,,and you don't know any
thing on robotics, is not the same to control a rover on Mars than a
plane at few kilometers,...

You're absolutely right - it's several thousand times easier. The
entire point behind swarm technology control of Mars explorer "bots" is
that they work totally autonomously, requiring NO guidance communication
whatsoever with anything but a lander base on Mars (and the use of this is
debatable), share their information among numerous units all performing
the
same tasks, and function on only rudimentary programming. That means
small,
light, inexpensive, power efficient, and dedicated to a task. They also
have very simple terrain to handle.

"AI" as you so charmingly put it was a staple item among several of
my friends at the UNC-CH Computer Science Department, and one of them
still
works in the field. The cold hard facts of the matter is that they are
light-years away from any kind of system that has the faintest ability to
function with "intuition" and "curiosity" in any way that you attempt to
define it, much less in, as you say, "a way no humans could reach". And
this is being done with a roomful of mainframe computers. At no point has
anyone come even close to the concept of "creative thinking", which means
taking input from an environment that does not match into programming or
"past experience" and determining a course of action from it. In other
words, they're not even close to intuition at all, much less doing so in
realtime with a programmed unit the miniscule size needed for a UAV.
Generating data from an environment requires billions upon billions of
bits
of information stored every second - that's just the "input" part alone.
The what do you do with it? You know all about robotics, do you? You tell
me then: how is the information parsed?


...also you know the OCR software that works in
your scanner, well cameras are like scanners, and the software can be
programmed to recognize a wide set of targets.

Heh! Having done the proofreading on documents scanned and
'recognized' by numerous different OCR software packages, I have to tell
you that your analogy leaves more than a little bit to be desired. I've
often wondered if it wasn't faster to just retype the damn things...

And it's orders of magnitude away from what you're describing. We're
not talking "All it takes is a faster processor"; we're talking about the
ability to see a partially or entirely camouflaged item and determine what
the hell it is, and act on it, without input, and in the space of a few
seconds. While operating through a three-dimensional environment
efficiently.

Ah, but since you're so self-assured in how it all works, you must be
able to point to documents or resources telling us where you got all this
wonderful information?


Sorry, don't cry, the war is not a romantic question, is a survival
question.

If I stop laughing long enough to cry, I'll let you know. It's gonna
be a while yet.


I loved the commanche, but more apaches and UAVs/UCAVs are better
partners on the battlefield.


One "M" in "Comanche" there, OCR...

I have no issue with remote vehicles and recognize their usefulness -
we should have been using them a lot longer ago than this. Unfortunately,
war is indeed about survival as you say, but most of the survival takes
place at the corporate and DOD level - jobs. It's been decades since the
emphasis has been on efficiency and optimal use of technology.

But there's also a real world limit to what can be done, and while
this changes all the time, it's also decades away, at a bare minimum, from
what you're attempting to sell. In fact, many scientists who make their
entire living from the field question whether it's even possible. This
isn't some hoohah article in Popular Science that's 90% speculation. This
is from accounting for what's been accomplished already and comparing it
to
what still needs to be done. Nobody that has ever seen the details of
environmental conditioning in an electronic manner believes this is a
viable method of guidance - there are much easier ways, And the primary
one
is using the supercomputer that's already been developed over millions of
years...


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to separate G and I in the domain