Slashdot Mirror
Injured Man Is First Person Saved By a Police Drone In Canada
AchilleTalon writes "As the US continues to grapple with the idea of letting drones fly through the country's airspace, our neighbors to the north have reported a new milestone for unmanned aerial technology: the first life saved using a drone. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the province of Saskatchewan announced yesterday that they successfully used the small Draganflyer X4-ES helicopter drone to locate and treat an injured man whose car had flipped over in a remote, wooded area in near-freezing temperatures. Zenon Dragan, president and founder of the Draganfly company that makes the drone, said in a statement: 'to our knowledge, this is the first time that a life may have been saved with the use of a sUAS (small Unmanned Aerial System) helicopter.'"
They are a powerful technology, for good, or evil.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
When they are used for search and rescue. The problem is that our police force has been lobbying to get them for law enforcement, to be used to further spy on and exert control over the populace. If law enforcement wants to have drones for the sole and limited purpose of search and rescue thats fine by me. Id prefer if I didnt need to worry about some agency watching my every physical move.
And implanted GPS transponders!
It's a good good thing citizen!
And remember... we care.
(Is it ominous that my captcha code was "terrors"?)
I can assure you hundreds and maybe thousands of people have been saved by drones of all sizes and shapes - but possibly the first time a drone used by the police has saved a life...
Back country search and rescue operations are an excellent use of drone technology.
...goes to Germany, with the V1 buzz bomb launched on June 13, 1944.
Of course we Canadians would use drones for polite and considerate tasks. We have a reputation to keep up!
Throw that drone a ticker tape parade!
I get where you're coming from; I really do. The issue I see is that, if your beef is with the existence of "eyes in the sky", then you're about fifty years too late. There are commercial satellites with the resolution to read your license plate, so just imagine what the government has up there. Worrying about drones under those conditions is like bitching that somebody tracked dirt into your dirt-floor house.
Pfffffa. Those German's are such show offs.
- Prof. Bush Pilots Association
I think it was the chinese.
*That was admittedly a questionable mixing of metaphors on my part, given the less than pleasant visuals that they might evoke...
autobahn, kindergarten, encouraging technological development, unifying a nation
Doesn't count. No guidance. A device like that you just point in the vague direction of the enemy and hope will hit. If you send a few thousand off, chances are a few will go the right way.
Interesting point, but I have to disagree. The V1 was a missile, not a drone. The V1 itself constituted the attacking weapon. I think the distinction with a drone attack would be that the drone itself isn't the attacking weapon, but rather it carries weapons to attack. Example: The Predator drone which carries Hellfire missiles.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Apparently, the guy swerved off the road to avoid the missile launched from the drone itself.
It's pretty bad already, so let's make it worse!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
As with most government tools we will only hear about the good things until after they become common place. When tazers were originally deployed they were a "replacement only for lethal force", now they are used at the drop of the hat against loudmouthed teens, nonviolent protestors, and pregnant women with little to no repercussions. Right now it is all about saving people lost in the woods and catching murders, but 5 years after they are more ubiquitous you can be guaranteed that the stories will begin to flow of women catching one hovering outside their bathroom window, protestors finding unflattering images of themselves on police forums & former boyfriends/girlfriends of officers being stalked by drones (much like the cases of police misusing official databases to track/harass).
The man's life was saved by a policeman using an infrared camera which happened to be mounted on a drone.
It's important to get the gist of the story right here, because the decision to use drones domestically is a matter of trade offs. So it makes a difference whether you draw the spurious lesson "drones save lives", or the correct lesson, "infrared cameras save lives, drones save money in deploying such cameras in comparison to conventional helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft." One might reasonably choose to risk civil liberties because of certain life-or-death situation, but not choose to do so if its a matter of another ten or twenty bucks a year on your state or provincial taxes.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
...by killing terrorists, think of how many lives have been saved.
ok maybe there's a little sarcasm in my comment...
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The V1 had a rudimentary guidance system consisting of an anemometer in the nose that track distance and tipped the missile into a dive at the proper range.
So yes it was the first guided drone.
If you throw a crack pipe at the head of a bank robber and distract the robber long enough to subdue the robber, you could say that a crack pipe saved the life of the bank manager.
The effect of a tool depends on how it is used.
Then again, a person carrying a crack pipe at a bank would probably have used the tool for its usual purpose, and would be unable to successfully aim the pipe at the robber's head, so the odds of a crack pipe routinely saving lives are about as slim as the odds of a drone routinely saving lives.
People in the US seems hesitant to have "drones" in the police force because of that buzzword used in the military to carry out attacks. There's an image associated with "drones" where we see a black and white image, followed by a violent explosion.
But intellectually, drones is nothing more than unmanned aircraft. I believe the police force would get less flak about it and privacy concerns if they called it unmanned helicopters. The picture in the article, it looks like a toy RC helicopter with off-the-shelf point and shoot camera (even though it's infrared). You could swat it off the air by throwing a shoe (if it was within range).
Make Magazine and various hobbyist websites have tutorials and gleaming articles about attaching a camera to an RC helicopter....but when the police department does it, it's evil? Police and news helicopters are already equipped with insanely powerful telephoto lenses where perpetrators don't even notice its presence (Rodney King footage).
I'm not saying the PD should have a free pass at it, but at the same time I feel this double standard on RC helicopters with cameras attached to be a little disingenuous.
As for the libertarian Rand Paul loving out there - I respect your need for privacy, but realistically you're not that important or interesting to begin with. Nobody cares about your data or whatever information you have. I've been there. I used to encrypt and lock down my *home* network and whatnot. Until I realized, no one gives a crap. There are billions of people out there - plenty of "noise" to hide under, if that's the case.
That's the thing: is this really "worse"? It's pretty much the exact same thing, only cheaper.
There are commercial satellites with the resolution to read your license plate
Satellites are not comparable to drones. To achieve good resolution, satellites need to be in near earth orbit, which means they are moving overhead at thousands of km/hr. They can take a snapshot, but they cannot loiter and observe continuously, and they cannot zoom in real time. They are an expensive and limited asset, which means they are not available to the local cop who has a grudge against you because you are dating his ex-girlfriend.
By that logic, the "drone" in the article wasn't even a "drone", since it doesn't do any of it's own onboard guidance. It's really just a fancy RC helicopter.
I don't respond to AC's.
There's a link in the article to a ~2 minute IR video that was provided and annotated by the drone's maker. It shows how human body heat clearly contrasts with snowy background, even from miles away. I'd be curious to see the same video shot in Summer temps. I suspect the range falls by 50% or more.
A hatchery is the first structure created by a drone in South Korea
I'd say it's worse, yes. I doubt satellites would be very useful for spying purposes.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
+5
It probably does have simple onboard guidance. Lots of home-built RC quadcopters do, and I don't see any reason why a commercial one shouldn't.
They are as expensive and limited to Federal agencies as overpriced "LEO-Grade Surveillance/Rescue Drones" are to local police departments. They aren't going to check out an expensive piece of equipment that requires the precinct to maintain an FAA license to operate to Officer How-Do-You-Fly-This Bob without a paper trail.
If you're worried about mission creep, and how this picture will look in twenty years... well, that's where drones are exactly comparable to satellites. Surely you see this?
when we can 3D print all the drones we need?
actually a valid point - not to mention Combat Search And Rescue (CSAR) missions, and convoy protection (stopping he convoy before getting to the roadside bomb) Global Hawk was used to provide surveillance of California wildfires to aid firefighters etc.. also likely saving lives. I think its awesome that the RCMP is using remotely piloted technology and it is cool it paid off in a tangible way of saving a life- but drones have save lots of lives in less visible ways
It would be better to equip every person and every vehicle with a GPS and a transponder, which could be queried at any time by police or other government agency performing essential public safety work. It could also serve as a universal form of ID.
Read a licence plate, if so then barely and only because there are only so many alphanumeric characters and you know how each one fogs out. That besides the point, sattelite imaging is often overestimated, the fact that you can take a look at any place in the world does not mean you can see the whole world with one look. Think of it like that, make a pinhole in a piece of paper and put the paper over a map, now try to read "dragons be here" through the pinhole. Same problem with finding interesting things with satellites, if you dont know where to point the sattelite in the first place you cant find anything.
Americans seem to have this stupid notion that they get 100% freedom and privacy 100% of the time anywhere they go while they do whatever it is they please.
I hate to break it to americans but as soon as you leave your home and out in public you no longer have privacy. That's why it is called being out in public. Do you complain that everyone else outside of your home can see you? Do you complain that police on patrol can see you? Do you complain that you can have your picture taken by someone else? No. But you complain when the government wants drones that can see you outside of your house.
Here is a nutty notion, if you are out in public and don't want to be monitored, don't do anything illegal. That's not so hard is it? Because trust me, joe lunchbox walking to his car to drive to mcdonalds wont be monitored because no one cares about him. Only bad people doing bad things will be monitored.
Hell americans complain when something bad happens that the cops weren't doing enough to prevent it, but still complain when the cops try to take preventative measures. If they don't take preventative measures they cant very stop anything can they? Now drones cant really stop anything but they can make catching people a hell of a lot more efficient.
Me personally I don't care if a drone sees me picking my nose when I go to the mailbox because I don't do bad things, thus I have nothing to worry about when I am out in public. Oh and I also realize that I AM OUT IN PUBLIC.
When the president has a drone flying around my living room, then we can talk.
There are commercial satellites with the resolution to read your license plate
High school physics FAIL!
Ezekiel 23:20
But.. but.. they had them on TV!
They are as expensive and limited to Federal agencies as overpriced "LEO-Grade Surveillance/Rescue Drones" are to local police departments. They aren't going to check out an expensive piece of equipment that requires the precinct to maintain an FAA license to operate to Officer How-Do-You-Fly-This Bob without a paper trail.
Drones are neither expensive nor difficult to operate. I have a quadcopter with a camera that cost about $500. My 8 year old son can fly it, so I think Officer Bob could manage as well. It is currently illegal for me to fly it out of line-of-sight, but there is no enforcement, and when I fly it, I usually look at the video on the laptop, not the drone. If Officer Bob was willing to break the law by using police resources to spy on his ex, then I don't think he is going to be too concerned about unenforced FAA regs.
Modern technology fail... or do you really think that satellite imagery is still poured over by dozens of people magnifying glasses in a poorly lit room? Jesus fucking Christ... it's like I'm talking to rejects from the Cold War here.
So this drone was taught first aid? Did it stitch up a leg? Reset a broken bone?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
How many drones does Canada have flying around? Are they restricted to roads in remote areas?
What chance do drones have of detecting such a vehicle?
If 1 human is watching 1 drone's footage, and watching if far more attentively than most people in such a position would, the question becomes "how much ground can a single drone cover in 8 hours?" If a single drone can cover all the roads in a city once or twice in an 8 hour shift, and there are 25 such cities in Saskatchewan, then for an annual cost of about 3.5 million dollars, a few lives in Saskatchewan might be saved.
I feel it is important to disclaim the fact that the lives saved are an extremely rare bi-product of the true reason these drones are used--spying on the civilian population.
Are we willing to spend millions of dollars and subject ourselves to endless, warrantless government surveillance in order to save a handful of lives a year?
Our money would be better spent policing fast-flowing rivers to prevent the much more prevalent drowning death.
Let's not get tricked into becoming a surveillance state by sensationalist stories, mm-kay?
There are commercial satellites with the resolution to read your license plate
[citation needed]
Don't say "google earth". That's mostly done with aircraft. You specifically said "commercial satellites" and "read your license plate".
Citation needed.
Modern technology fail... or do you really think that satellite imagery is still poured over by dozens of people magnifying glasses in a poorly lit room? Jesus fucking Christ... it's like I'm talking to rejects from the Cold War here.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but what I was pointing to was that reading a license plate from LEO would require a 10+-meter mirror, under the best conditions (no atmosphere to screw things up). Somehow I don't think that such a satellite has ever been launched. It doesn't matter at all whether the images are being pored (sic!) over by "dozens of people magnifying glasses in a poorly lit room", since "dozens of people magnifying glasses in a poorly lit room" can't beat the fundamental limitations of an imaging system that have their roots in the most fundamental laws of physics.
Ezekiel 23:20
There was also a gyrocompass for course and some other stuff for altitude, if I'm not mistaken. Technically, it was one of the first cruise missiles, although it didn't much of cruising - it did a lot of the missing, though. :-)
Ezekiel 23:20
Faster and cheaper than by car. Especially during rush hour. Of course we want drones in our airspace - plenty of them . . .
I get where you're coming from; I really do. The issue I see is that, if your beef is with the existence of "eyes in the sky", then you're about fifty years too late. There are commercial satellites with the resolution to read your license plate, so just imagine what the government has up there. Worrying about drones under those conditions is like bitching that somebody tracked dirt into your dirt-floor house.
Yeah, but people generally have a much bigger fear of local law enforcement than they do the CIA or the NSA. Local law enforcement shouldn't be in the spying business.
Aperture synthesis, take 5 pictures in succession and you have your plate
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
The story is spin, not to mention inaccurate.
The drone didn't do anything to 'treat' the man, as stated in the article and summary.
The drone spotted him using an infrared camera that could as easily have been mounted on the manned helicopter that didn't, for whatever reason, spot him when it went out. Not sure why the helicopter didn't also check the area where the man's mobile phone signal had last been spotted (which is where the drone went) but whatever.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
A theoretical possibility, yes, but I seriously doubt that this has been put into practice even on secret government spy sats, much less on the commercial satellites the GGP was talking about, not to mention the fact that if "commercial satellites" were employing this technique (for what commercial purpose again?), we'd know about that (as in, someone would be advertising that to buyers).
Ezekiel 23:20
no really when did canada authorize the use of drones over civilian airspace.
Satellites have been using this technique since forever (at least the ones facing outwards from our planet).
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Oh, really? Examples, please (in the optical part of the spectrum, of course).
Ezekiel 23:20
Perhaps another distinguishing characteristic of a drone (vs a V1) might be that a drone returns to a "base" and lands (or is otherwise recovered) to complete its mission.
For hire.
Uh, no..
You're thinking of diffraction limits, but that applies to a single imager at a single time. Once you start adding multiple images taken from multiple points over some length of time, that limit no longer exists, given sufficient computational horsepower.
Consider the similar thing of SAR in the microwave spectrum.
as cops now sit around and steer drones all day
Hey, Sony, you've gone a long ways since our trip to 1998 trip to Hong Kong and your 1999 June Playboy!!! Congrats on being a first in the world! - VLL
..bright screens for bright people, but now I've got to wear sunglassess.
If I'm not mistaken, doing this in the optical part of the spectrum is pretty involved and we've only recently started doing that on the ground, in more or less controlled conditions. Has any such instrument been actually launched into orbit that would be able to do this with visible light?
Ezekiel 23:20
I happen to be a search & rescue volunteer here in the southwestern US. (As a matter of interest, we are all 100% volunteers. We don't get paid for anything except fuel when we're on a search. We buy all of our own equipment and devote a lot of our own time to train regularly.) Recently, we were approached by some university students who built an inexpensive UAV ($3000) specifically for SAR uses. I personally though their platform had a lot of merit. It's a low-cost foam airplane that uses a customized version of Ardupilot to take photos regularly while flying a pattern over a designated region. They can photograph a square mile in about 30 minutes. You then have a couple of people do a photo analysis of the results. The photos are all geotagged so you can pull a coordinate off the photo for some object of interest. Sadly, the political climate is such that the tin-foil hat types have scared the county board of supervisors and the local Sheriff's office away from even trying the platform out on some training exercises. What's worse is that even though our SAR organization is an independent 501(c)3 and not part of any law-enforcement agency, the managers still won't try out the concept. I wonder how people would feel if some child died of exposure because we didn't have this tool in the toolbox.
This platform is also an order of magnitude cheaper than a DraganFlyer and can cover a hell of a lot more ground without changing out the battery. 15 minutes of air time isn't nearly enough.
Is a cruise missile a drone? That's essentially what the V1 was...
its commonly called
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superresolution
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
somebody at Dragan has a gra for the language. Anyone know if Dragan has a connection with a Gaelic community?
No you are wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_imagery#Resolution_and_data .41m Which is well below the resolution need to read a license plate. Also since you would have to view it at an oblique angle instead of almost vertically.
The best commercial sat has a resolution of about
Second the high resolution imaging sats are in low earth orbit so you do not have 24/7 coverage.
So you have no idea what you are talking about and have contributed nothing but noise to this thread. You may go now and leave your geek card at the door.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"drone (vs a V1) might be that a drone returns to a "base" and lands (or is otherwise recovered) to complete its mission."
Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21
Probably the only dividing lines that work would be that a cruise missile contains an warhead and is destroyed in the attack and that it is a single function device aka it is just a weapon.
A drone can be used for many functions including delivering weapons but it is not the actual weapon.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
How is this guy not a James Bond villain?
Yes, I'm sure you do. A guy in my office spent $30 on a quadcopter and strapped a $20 wireless camera to it, so I'm not completely oblivious to this. That's why I made a big deal about exaggerating the brand name of my hypothetical copter. Have you actually priced the "LEO Special" copters? They run into the thousands of dollars for the exact same model you can get off of Ebay for $200, with just a few extra decals slapped on it. It's a pretty well known fact that government agencies pay exorbitant prices for otherwise easily-obtainable hardware... I thought I could get away without explaining this in detail.
And, regularly enforced or not, the department isn't going to want to screw with the FAA and risk losing its license to operate drones. The thin blue line isn't going to protect Officer Bob when the Feds come knocking to take the department's toys away.
So, no... I do not believe the Officer Bob scenario. I could much more easily buy into systemic corruption and department-wide abuse of the drones, but that's a problem that exists apart from the hardware; it's something that needs fixing whether or not they have RC helicopters with camcorders.
Most libertarians have no problem with drones - they're cheaper to operate than manned aerial vehicles, and have a lot more on-station time. Nobody will argue with drones being sent to find someone lost in the woods.
The problem arises when drones are "on patrol" with narrowband radar looking into houses on fishing expeditions. And so the question remains - what appropriate checks and balances exist search with court permission?
- - - Non Caffeine Drink or Drink Error
License plates aren't on roofs hurr durr! Go fuck yourself with your geek card, you shit-eating cock-gobbler.
Read the rest of the thread next time before posting about others adding nothing but noise.
It's common fucking knowledge to anyone with half a brain and even a passing interest in astronomy. Even land-based telescopes have been using this technique for years. Stop asking for a citation at every gods-damned opportunity... this isn't a term paper. If you're that interested, go look it up yourself. Anything else is a pitiful attempt at a GOTCHA! And, really, if that's all you have, then do us all a favor and kill yourself.
Yes. All of them. Every satellite with a camera in orbit is capable of doing this, because the technology doesn't depend upon any kind of proprietary capture device -- it's all in the post-processing. This has been explained to you. Stop being obtuse.
You should tell that to our government, so they'll stop putting up so many spy satellites. Somebody should definitely let them know that they're no good for spying.
For spying on individual people, I can't see where they would be very useful or efficient (certainly not as much as an unmanned drone).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
So what if Canada "saves" someone with a drone. I bet the US will be the first one to hunt down and kill a fugitive with one. Stick to your strengths, I always say.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
I was referring to the Chinese rockets.
Saved: 1
Killed: tens of thousands
Drones are still in the terror regime part of the spectrum.
A drone is simply a pilotless vehicle. Whether the drone fires a weapon or drops a bomb or consumes it self in a suicide run it is still a drone.
Japan even had torpedoes in WWII that had a human inside steering towards the targets. In a way even a WWII, normal torpedo was a drone.
I think the real separation point is that we expect a drone to be intelligent and somewhat able to operate without human aid at times. A cruise missle is an example of an intelligent, autonomous drone although the public never though of them in that light.
I did. You didn't Your useless, never reply to any of my posts unless you are man enough to not be an AC and take the karma hit for your trolling.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
They will only tell us about the people saved, and will not even mention the spying, or people killed.
Isn't it ironic.
GUNS:
CNN talks about x number of people are killed by guns every year, and say almost nothing about those saved by guns.
DRONES:
CNN talks about x number of people are saved by drones and say almost nothing about those killed by them.
This is mostly because the Canadian drone standard load out only comes with moose tranquilizers rather than hell-fire missiles.
Hurr durr internet tough guy! Timmah!
Do you really think anyone is going to abide by your silly code of conduct? Do you think you're "the boss"? Waste your karma on this: go fuck yourself.
It's not done in the camera, so you don't need any special gear in orbit. It's done with digital post production processes - "in the lab", so to speak.
I would imagine that the NRO have been doing this sort of thing for ages.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
It's not done in the camera, so you don't need any special gear in orbit. It's done with digital post production processes - "in the lab", so to speak.
I believe that SAR involves having phase information about the incident photons, not just intensity. I don't think that SAR is something you can do "in postproduction". It would have to be a different method. Then again, you'd still have to compensate for atmospheric disturbances (I believe the astronomers call it "seeing").
Ezekiel 23:20
No, it's not SAR, as such. It's called up-rezzing or super-resolution technology. Essentially, you take several low resolution images which contain slightly different perspectives of the same object. The total information about the object exceeds information from any single frame. So you mathematically combine the images to increase the effective resolution.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
That is something that would make sense (I'm aware of that, in fact I had looked into that once before for a different reason), but that still doesn't solve the problem of Earth's atmosphere. A single shot selected from a sequence of shots at least has the benefit of allowing you to select a frame where the detail you're looking for is relatively undisturbed (every astronomer knows there are brief moments of stillness, and those are the ones you're looking for), but how one would go about increasing resolution beyond the Dawes' limit using this technique while simultaneously eliminating seeing still eludes me. Also don't forget that you usually take surveillance photos in daylight, which probably complicates things (as opposed to night-time astronomical shots) because of the uneven thermal conditions in the atmosphere.
Ezekiel 23:20
what a pathetic little baby... Ahh. No guts, nothing worth saying, yet you scream profanities like you matter.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
gosgog: .....computers!!
I am absolutely amazed at the number of people (majority of this bunch are in the IT business or employed by it) who are against one of the more interesting pieces of equipment available. Those against drones....y'all responded by computer.....now how do you think the information used by drones....good or bad, was developed and is used
Drones, Guns, knives, axes, hammers, etc....are all tools.....tools don't kill!! HUMAN BEINGS kill, misusing tools. So shut the Fuck up!
And you still haven't pulled the trigger. All your strutting and talk, and you can't even hit a button to prove your manhood. What a terrible disappointment you must have been as a child.
Oh yeah: gooooooo....... fuck yourself!
They're still up there. They've been taking pictures of your back yard for decades. Why get upset that they're making the entire process cheaper?
If they didn't already have this capability in the form of CCTV, satellites, helicopters, and traffic cams, I could at least see the point of it all -- but they do, so why all the fuss? Don't get me wrong: I'd rather not be watched every minute of every day, myself, but I can't really muster any outrage over yet another camera when there's already virtually nowhere I can go to avoid them.
Why get upset that they're making the entire process cheaper?
Because it's making it worse and more accurate. Drones also make it easier to selectively harass people.
If they didn't already have this capability in the form of CCTV, satellites, helicopters, and traffic cams
I don't think they should be spying on people with any of those, either.
I really wish people would stop replying to me with something to the effect of, "It's bad already, so let's allow the government to make it worse! Why do you care!? It's bad already! What's the harm in it getting a bit worse?" Such lovely logic.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I just think we're way, way past the point where "more" = "worse". More is just more, now, until/unless they start forcing everyone to wear lapel cameras.
I just think we're way, way past the point where "more" = "worse".
I don't think we'll ever be past that point; 1,001 people dying is worse than 1,000 people dying in my books.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Watch that mouth or your mommy will kick you out of the basement.
Wow still to gutless to take a karma hit by showing your face. Go away now and wish you had the guts to show your face in the light of day.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.