Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:The REALY dystopia (Re:So...) (Score 1) 179

Yup, sure enough. More ad hominem snark instead of addressing the substance of the matter. You know perfectly well that the WaPo isn't the way you characterize it, but rather than point to persuasive information to defend your position, you're just dishing out the juvenile foot-stamping. Still, if that's the way you concede that the person you're being shrill at is actually correct, so be it.

Comment Re:So... (Score 1, Interesting) 179

Oh bla bla bla. You are just rationalizing the absurd.

Yes, it is absurd that people become violent and crazy, and they do things like hold hostages or grab kids or attack people, or force stand-offs. If people wouldn't do absurd crap like that, then the absurd crap like that they do wouldn't happen right in front of us every week. The fact that you're pretending it doesn't happen is curious though. What do you think that achieves? It's an odd personality quirk, at least.

Comment Re:So... (Score -1) 179

You really stand tall for all this authoritarian shit

I see. So if one of YOUR family members is being held or threatened by some loon, you'd rather that member of your family get hurt than the cops use a taser to subdue the person who's the problem? Or would you rather they use lethal force? Or would you rather they simply walk away so that nobody can accuse them of being "authoritarian," using any sort of force against a person who, after all, hasn't yet killed your family member, he's just promising to if anyone comes close to him.

You don't actually understand what "authoritarian" means, do you?

Comment Re:So... (Score 2, Interesting) 179

Why is it ridiculous? Why would you NOT (if it's logistically reasonable) use a small tracked RC machine on the ground to roll into one of those classic and recurring crazy-person-barricade-gun-waving scenarios, and taser that clown remotely instead of risking the life of one or more police officers? Likewise, if the circumstances happen to fit, why wouldn't you do that from 10 feet over the guy's head?

And if you've got that same crazy guy holed up somewhere and you need to flush him out ... why would you shoot potentially incendiary tear gas shells (which can also be lethal if they happen to, say, catch you right in the head in the wrong way as they come through a window) the old fashioned way, if you can send in a flying robot that can just let loose with the same substance while also seeing what's going on.

Ridiculous is as ridiculous does. If you're saying we shouldn't have the tools because some people don't use tools wisely, then we should take away cars, guns, flashlights, tasers, pepper spray, shoes, radios, and probably fingers and hands from all police just because there's the chance that some officer will choose to use them the wrong way.

Comment Re:Just what I need for an old car! (Score 1, Insightful) 87

To say nothing about the ridiculous price. Especially for a service that's unlikely to be used in any given month. F'em all.

If it's not working all the time, it's not working. That's the whole point of these systems. A lot of what it offers (like, knowing where your 85 year old grandpa's car is when he's late coming back from golfing and not answering his phone) isn't useful if it's only online and using its SIM card and burning some bandwidth when the driver decides just that moment to turn it on. If $15 bucks for a mobile device's connectivity and use of their services is too much for you, just don't buy it. There are plenty of people who would like some OnStar-type services on a vehicle that wasn't factory equipped for it, and the cost of two sandwiches a month is simply no big deal.

Comment Re:Unintended consequences (Score 1) 188

You think commercial operation will be better

Yes. My experience in observing the habits and practices of both suggests very strongly that enthusiastic recreational multirotor fliers aren't nearly as thoughtful about things as are commercial users. Most recreational fliers are used to operating in very sedate, controlled spaces like AMA fields. Commercial operators are thinking about way, way more factors before, during, and after a planned flight.

Comment Re:Unintended consequences (Score 1) 188

Or you know, they could get permission from the neighbor! ... Usually permission for stuff like this is trivial to get.

Speaking from years of experience, I can assure you that it is NOT easy to get. When a realtor makes arrangements for a photographer or a video crew to come and document a property, coordinating with two, three, or four neighbors on logistics, timing, and permission is usually impossible. We try to educate neighbors of clients along these lines: "We'll have a small 4-pound plastic quadcopter, about the size of a large pizza, moving just over your property line, right above tree top level, looking back at the house we're photographing - we'll be in that position over your property for about 30 seconds, and of course we won't do that until there's nobody out in your yard that might be uncomfortable with that. Would you like to see some video of how we operate so you understand what's involved? We'd also be happy to provide you with some free images of your own house, just for fun, that you can use in any way you'd like. If you'd like to look over our shoulders while we're operating, so you can see what we can and can't see through the camera, you're very welcome to..."

Most people are intrigued by the technology, some become very enthusiastic and say things like, "Hey, while you're up there, can you check our chimney, and our gutters?" (which we're always happy to do, no charge). But perhaps one in twenty people shut down their brains the moment they hear "camera" - sometimes even just ground cameras. I've had people yell at us because they don't think we should be allowed to depict the for-sale house if the shot includes a view of their property in the background. You can't EVER get permission from people that irrational, and instead have to point out that we have every right to shoot from the street and that anything in simple view from the street has no expectation of privacy.

Speaking of which, this new legislation seems to be silent on flying cameras above the street and other public right of ways. More absurdity.

Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!

Working...