but that's going to have to run on a motor spinning 25fps in the other direction. It could work if frictionless was possible though. I wonder if gyroscopes, low friction and a counter prop like a helicopter would make that feasible.
i was thinking something similar, then I realized that with a 25fps camera, it's made an entire rotation in the time the aperture was open. I was thinking more about taking pictures OF the drone. But if I was designing some automated machine to attack this thing, like another drone, putting a 120fps camera on it would give a decent picture of it. that's only about 1/5th of a rotation. Tracking software doesn't need to get a perfectly clear picture to track something.
This "AI" seems to be severely lacking in training, in that no superior/invincible force (e.g. a party simulating law enforcement) showed up and demonstrated the downside to taking certain actions.
Dammit, can't anyone make some stylish cyber-shoes? That looks like shit! Anyone who goes around upskirt-snapping with shoes like that, is going to get laughed out of the ballroom by all the snobs.
Is it ok if I show up in regular glasses, but where an always-on LED is attached to the one of the corners? (I understand pervs are falling out of popularity, but that doesn't mean we need to abandon the whole aesthetic!)
"The only solution" is in fact, not the "only" solution.
The correct and LEGAL means for the police to gain access to the phone is to take it and seal it in a tamperproof container (aka electronic Faraday Evidence Bag), go to a court and ask for a warrant to search the contents.
We have established LAW and procedures for the state to gain access to the device. It is inconvenient ON PURPOSE. and serves as a checks and balance in legal proceedings.
IF that is the case, seize the phone, get a Search Warrant.
The problem is, the state couldn't be bothered following ESTABLISHED law and procedures.
Simply accusing someone of some unspecified crime isn't a right the state has to just bypass Constitutional protections, namely the 4th and 5th Amendments.
Americans have rights, secured in our founding Constitution. I don't care what feelings one might have to the rest of the case. Rights exist, enshrined and we ought to defend them tirelessly forever.
There is some established case law that says that one cannot be compelled to give up a Password, Pin or Pattern Unlock, as a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendment.
Those Amendments are key to a person's rights to be SECURE. Which is the key word here. He SECURED his rights, under duress, by refusing to comply.
THIS is separate from the police chasing him as a possible criminal for crimes I may or may not like.
Rights work by being the STARTING POINT, not an afterthought or worse, something the state can simply ignore in an attempt to prosecute people for potential criminal activity.
The state has legal remedies they ought to seek if they want access to secured personal property. We all know what that is. GET A WARRANT, which is almost always a rubber stamp (very easy bar to jump over). They couldn't even be bothered with that.
Everyone ought to understand, if we do not defend our rights, the state certainly won't.
Do we really have to reinvent the wheel every damn time?! It used to be that you just got Voight-Kampff tested, and the administrator of the test would sign your PGP key. WTF was wrong with that?!
My first reaction is that if one company is selling at half the price, that company will go bankrupt at twice the speed since every transaction was already a money-loser. Customers are absolutely the worst thing for these "businesses."
But is revenue really significant? I can see how neither reducing the price to $0 or increasing their price to 10x what it was, might not really have much of a different impact on the bottom line, compared to all the debt.
Make IBM Great Again: go back to
Nobody remembers or cares that a B-2's toilet cost $23k, so the Pentagon is updating to a newer, better form of government waste that kids today will better understand.
"They also to an incident (and not almost) didn't smear shit on the walls or kill cops. Your false equivalence here is obvious support for the same child raping president you claim to not support. No one is stupid enough to buy your bullshit here."
What cop was killed on J6? The one who got pepper-sprayed? The one listed as "natural causes" on his DC? What's a reasonable penalty for that, assuming you got the guy who sprayed him?
With the Floyd riots, 2000 injured police officers, with injuries ranging from gunshot wounds, to severe head trauma, to broken bones, deep lacerations, etc... and virtually no jail or or prison time for rioters.
Facts are, in fact "stubborn things" and bias is hard to overcome for many regardless of facts.
"Bullshit"? You're the one with "Poo" in your name, Poo.
"What is the point of posting references to documents you clearly have never even read?"
What's the point of posting to a thread if you don't READ the thread.
Poo: "Trump pardoned all the J6 terrorists via autopen."
Me: "No he didn't. There was a mix of pardon's and commutations"
"Hundreds of police officers were attacked, 140 of whom received injuries at the hands of the insurrectionist mob. Officers have lost eyes,"
And most of the folks prosecuted were beyond over prosecuted for it. One officer lost an eye, yes (ONE! Singular) -- but over 1500 people were arrested and over prosecuted. Things like calling "bear spray" and discharging fire extinguishers "lethal weapons" And yes, one ex firefighter actually threw a fire extinguisher.
Compare that to the over 2000 officers that suffered injuries (including gunshot wounds, broken bones and severe head trauma from thrown bricks) , during the George Floyd riots defending Federal take over and take over attempts as well as state building take overs and take over attempts. The vast majority of those arrested were charged with misdemeanors that were mostly dropped later on and most of those that were charged with felonies were allowed to plea down to misdemeanors with no or virtually no jail time.
"You just demonstrated it by attempting to excuse away the blatantly indefensible with a load of factually incorrect gibberish."
You just demonstrated you suffer from TDS by your in ability to think straight.
And no, I do *NOT* believe J6 was an insurrection but a protest gone riot -- much like the George Floyd riots. They went to protest what they believed to be severe election irregularities. It's their right -- even if they are wrong. it's not their right to riot. Trump TOLD people at the near by "rally" to walk over to the capital building: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Yes, he used the same language earlier on in the rally that BOTH sides use with in their various rallies and calling "fight" for their $_Cause.
"The appellate process not vigilantism is the proper forum for those who believe they have been mistreated in some way by the justice system. "
I don't disagree with this -- but the power of the President and Governors to pardon and commute is also there to quickly resolve an injustice or over use of the justice system as a "fail safe" -- it's part of that system and you are deliberately being blind not to admit that.
Do I believe the pardons were overly broad? Yes. There are some folks who should have served (and some did) more than a year in jail or prison, but for the majority, it was the right decision.
"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger
