What is Digg?96 Comments
- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Time to develop civilian anti-aircraft capabilities.
- bryancharles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3how many of these things are gonna get shot down HL2 style?
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now I just need one of these and a google map of all the sorority houses, and hottie homes in my city...
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
Actually it would be fun to hack the uplink and commandeer those suckers. - jodamiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oh ARE the GOING to DO that?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1creepy...
- MassaYoda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now I just need my Young Ladies Illustrated Primer and I'm set.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1POLL:
If one crash-landed in my back yard, I would:
A) Strip it of identifying marks and try to pass it off to my science teacher as my own invention.
B) Terrorize my neighbor's pets with it (assuming I could make it fly on my own).
C) Sell it to the idiot down the block, then tell five-o where he lives.
D) Gut the darn thing, and try to create the coolest PC mod in the world.
E) Send it to the boys at Engadget. - FunHeadlines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All you people who say, "If I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to hide," think about this: Are the outer walls of your house transparent? Why not? What are you trying to hide? What are you doing wrong in your home that you feel the need to put up walls that law enforcement cannot see through? Smoking pot in there, are you?
Get the point? We all have a human need for privacy, for a feeling that we aren't under constant surveillance. There have been studies that show surveillance creates stress. So if you want there to be constant surveillance every time you leave your home, help yourself. Just leave us law-abiding citizens out of that scheme, please. Or else be consistent and have transparent walls on your house. - tastypastry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The New World Order was born on September 11th, 2001.
- matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The only benefit a drone has is it is silent."
They're probably cheaper than a helicopter. - the_witch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you want to see what these actually look like, go to cnn.com then videos - sci & tech and look for there 'Mini Eyes in sky' feature.
- klacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The drones are pretty impressive, no doubt.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0stupid thats not what these even do!!!
- blkmagik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wonder if destroying theses will be considered assault on an officer. I think theses drones are a step over the line the government has just gone too far
- OutcastJiob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0FuManchu, you've got it. It's not that we're "worried" that they'll see what we're doing, it's that they don't have the right to see what we're doing. Without a warrant, of course (although the warrant requirement hasn't seemed to stop the FBI if they really want to know something)
Anyway, the drones themselves: awesome. Legitimate, legal, non-invasive uses for the drones: awesome. It's like having a swarm of little helicopters checking out the area (imagine the combat uses of that). The technology itself is neither good nor bad; it's all about the use of the technology. - jamelt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this won't last
- TheMJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Remind you of Half-Life 2?"
EXACTLY what came to mind.
The LIGHT.. it BURNS! - skeeto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol @ all the people saying it'll be fun to shoot them down. yeah i suppose, but you know they'll make it a felony to do so. destroying gubmint property and all that.
- bshock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Enjoy flying model planes? Suddenly you'll have a practical use for this hobby -- as a spy drone predator. Remote-control dogfights sound like a lot of fun. Well, except for the falling debris.
- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0QUOTE:
If you aren't doing something wrong, you shoudln't be worried. I know that there can be bad cops out there, but there can be bad in anyone- cops, preists, fast food workers, etc etc.
-------------
Wrong. The whole Bill of Rights protections against unreasonable search and seizure, the necessity for a warrant, and the Supreme Court's deduced "right to privacy" EXPLICITLY means that IF the government has no reasonable proof that would allow them to GET A WARRANT FIRST, they have no business interfering in your private affairs.
All of history shows that once the government gets power over citizens, they use whatever power they have to eliminate dissent. - baines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I was thinking the exact same thing SmeRndmGy
- ronmexico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Drudge is a blogger, and not even a good blogger anymore. Stick a fork in him...."
eh? ksqant you know not of what you speak. - xofc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And paranoia runs rampant...
Well, I was going to make a well-reasoned defense of these micro UAVs, but I see that the "slippery slope to a police state" party won't hear anything of it. Most anything - be it guns, riot shields, cameras, helicopters - can be used for the subjugation of a populace, or to promote its inalienable rights. The question is how they are to be used, which is more a question of policy than technology. - shorgs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Privacy is something I value. I feel that my national, state, city, family, and personal security was just fine prior to this scrutiny. Therefore it does not have my favor.
There is no one out to get me state or personally.
I am however deviant in some acts. I advocate change where I see its need. I don't do everything the same way as is expected of me. I have a public face and a private face. I like it that way. I value my privacy, and I see value in my privacy.
There can be serious social and personal repercussions for not letting people have the privacy that they historically depended upon. Its social control. And its removing personal security. - skeeto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I remember when news of these things first popped up and people didn't believe it. Any of those "out there" radio hosts were called kooks and tin foil hat. Har har. Hey, didn't the old TechTV have a program (before G4 took over) showing new technology that allows the military to get a nice crisp black and white picture of the inside of your house? I believe they demonstrated it and zoomed in on a guy eating a bowl of corn flakes or something at his kitchen table. And the guy said that was OLD technology. They improved it and apparently made it color.
- whickywhickyjim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I bet these will be almost as awesome as those old honeywell computers with the ginormous floppy drives.
- Squill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great there is a Honeywell factory about 5 minutes away from where I live, and the clostest city is Richmond, Va. LoL I'd love to see some of these things flying around the city.
- TheSenator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Then they should start putting telescreens in everyones houses that can transmit data both ways...
+digg
++ungood - sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+01984.
- Rounin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My word you people are paranoid. The Fourth Amendment and a slew of established case law ensure that private citizens enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
This means the government CANNOT, without probable cause or a search warrant, zoom in through your windows and bust you smoking pot or humping the family dog. They can, if you are outside and within public view of others. - Durrok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"News flash they can do this anyways this just makes it easier."
So... thats.... a good thing?
"last i heard, when you have a job, you're supposed to do it. patrol officers, cops in cars, that's what they do. uphold the law."
Great, lets start making it so we have to execute a certain number of people every month too. After all, we are just upholding the law right? - metalgore32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Fumanchu... you mean a shotgun?
- MicahC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just another way to make more money from speeding tickets.
- .Steven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"how many of these things are gonna get shot down HL2 style?"
Ditto - Eyot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Im thinking these guys play Halflife 2
- TK99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I saw this on CNN, the civilian version will be used in disaster situations.
But how long before the RIAA and MPAA demand Congress use these things to close the 'Privacy Hole'. - stanleyfresh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wonder how much could I sue for when one of those things malfunction, fall outta the sky, and smack me right on the head?
- AzzardX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And I thought it was a joke...
http://content.honeywell.com/dses/products/vmmgmt/micro-air-vehicle.htm - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Now I just need my Young Ladies Illustrated Primer and I'm set."
Amen to that... I LOVED that book. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Will be shot down within 5 minutes of being seen by a redneck who doesn't read the news.
"LOOK! IT'S A UFO! GIT MA GUN!" - simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0first thing that came to mind was half-life 2
- Duston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Durrok, drawing a parallel between cops writing speeding tickets to people who were speeding and calling for public executions is the best example of illogical conclusions jumping I have seen in a long time.
- ciphex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Drudge has good stuff. He's gotten a bad rep in the media etc for being paranoid and all. Sure they're paranoid over there @ drudgereport... but shouldn't we all be?
"whiny hippie frolf playing little bitch"
rofl - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0klumcn wrote; The only benefit a drone has is it is silent.
I imagine there's quite a bit more than that - they are very small, which means they can be maneuvered into places that a helicopter would never be able to access. They could conceivably hover outside of someone's home, for example, tucked out of sight, but not without being able to observe what's going on.
The currently WAY overly-permissive state of laws governing various government agencies (thanks to our beloved Patriot Act), could make this a nasty proposition. - ivanjs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's about time... "We've" seen this coming for some time. You will be assimilated...
- Duston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guess I missed the part of the article that stated these things (with a 50 minute battery life) would be hovering outside your windows taping you. If you are in a public place like a street were these were deployed for an emergency what expectation do you have? You are in public after all.
Take a breath, put down the joint, and relax. - kidlinux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's a matter of privacy.
I'm willing to live with a certain level of crime that's attributed to the fact that police have reached the maximum possible level of survelliance (ie: driving around in their cruisers) without invading my privacy.
PRIVACY
I don't care if they're not looking for non-criminals. The fact is, there might be some untrustworthy ***** behind those cameras who can see and tape what I'm doing, or what other people significant to me are doing. Even if the person IS trustworthy, I don't want them to be able to see what I'm doing all the time. I would begin to feel imprisoned, as though I don't have the freedom to do what I want (and I'm talking about legal activities here) in fear of being seen.
If anything, these devices would increase crime, because if I knew somebody was invading my privacy, I would cave his goddamned face in.
This is complete ***** and it's gonna be hella fun shooting those outta the sky with my pellet or paintball gun. Who thinks of this ***** and WHO CAN POSSIBLY JUSTIFY IT!? - antiTRACE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0at least you can "see" them, unlike the satellites, you never know where they are looking (specifically) and if you think what's in the public eyes, you can only guess the res. on the classified ones.
- serra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This would be very cool, I think that it would make more people mind their p's and q's. And it would help catch the people that are otherwise hard or impossible to catch.
If you aren't doing something wrong, you shoudln't be worried. I know that there can be bad cops out there, but there can be bad in anyone- cops, preists, fast food workers, etc etc. -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is