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.
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...
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.
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.
You forgot getting rid of the jews! (I joke I joke, he didn't get rid of the jews)
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
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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
He is, after all, the guy who killed Hitler...
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
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're mixing them, I prefer my metaphors shaken, not stirred.
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
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.
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!
but when the police department does it, it's evil?
The government has the power to ruin people's lives, so the implications are far different. Furthermore, the information would be available to the entire government, not just a single person.
And unmanned drones are different from helicopters (and I don't think helicopters should be spying on anyone, either) in that they can be used en masse far more easily.
but realistically you're not that important or interesting to begin with.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. As long as the government doesn't abuse me, all is well!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
(news from 2014)
And so tonight, the president declared shoes illegal.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
There are commercial satellites with the resolution to read your license plate
High school physics FAIL!
Ezekiel 23:20
Stop imagining, the future is today!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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'm not seeing it.
I hate to break it to americans but as soon as you leave your home and out in public you no longer have privacy.
What? Where are all these Americans who supposedly think that you have privacy even when in public? I'd be happy if more than a select few existed, but many people seem to only care for security.
But really, the government is not entitled to have ubiquitous surveillance, so this whole thing is meaningless.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
I think the issue many people have, besides the imagery, is drones drastically lower the barrier to abuse by police departments. Putting a fixed wing plan or a helicopter in the air is a fairly big deal, there is paperwork and people involved, there will be fuel and maintenance to deal with, and generally only large departments actually have easy access to them.
Drones on the other hand are much much cheaper to acquire and operate, and will probably be done with much less oversight. And unfortunately the police have a reputation for abusing powers when they are easy to access.
So I think people feel that the main reason current aircraft have not been heavily abused is their relative inaccessibility, and that the problem with drones is not that they add fundamentally new capabilities, but because they make those capabilities cheap and accessible.
Though on the topic of 'importance', that is one of the issues. To be important enough to abuse traditional aircraft you really have to be on the radar so to speak. But for drones? They are much more likely to find their way into personal conflicts.. cop neighbor doesn't like your dog? Date a cop's sibling and you have a fight? In the same way other police powers have slowly found their way into petty personal squabbles, drones could to.
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.
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
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.
Furthermore, the information would be available to the entire government, not just a single person.
There are two issues with this statement;
1. The "single person" has access to youtube and the internet and can post the video for anyone to view. Remember the blood in the river caught by a civilian drone? There are also many news outlets that will publicize it if it is important enough.
2. "The government" is not a monolithic organization. There are many competing agencies and departments who are competing with each other to make themselves look more important and therefore get a bigger budget. It is difficult enough to get two local police departments to work together let alone State and Federal agencies.
And unmanned drones are different from helicopters (and I don't think helicopters should be spying on anyone, either) in that they can be used en masse far more easily.
True, it is easier to use drones en masse much the same way it is easier to establish a manned base on the Moon compared with a manned base on Mars (neither of which are going to happen any time soon). To use drones en masse will take a lot of money, mostly in terms of pilot and technician salaries, which most police forces do not have. These slippery slope arguments, "A hundred today means a hundred thousand next year", are invalid. They are not being used en masse today or for the foreseeable future. Until then, and in the numbers they are being used they are a very useful tool.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
There is a lot of truth in that statement. If you don't want to get a speeding ticket then don't speed. I don't generally go about breaking laws but when I do I am willing to take the consequences..
As long as the government doesn't abuse me, all is well!
As long as the government doesn't abuse anyone, all is well! Fixed that for you. Any tool can be abused. Should night sticks taken form police because they could be used to beat up an innocent person? The protection comes in when someone does use the tool improperly. They need to be prosecuted and sent to jail as has happened many times.
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
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.
Yeah, but they can add dynametric tailfins to their drones!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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.
The government has the power to ruin people's lives
Um... so do private citizens and corporations.
Now whether such power is legal or not may not matter to the victim, nor would the many hurdles they have to jump to get compensated.
Again, the original article was about using drones and deploying infra-red cameras in the Canadian wilderness, which sounds to me like a fantastic way to use this technology. It's a lot better than waiting X numbers of days and then massing enough people for a manhunt through a giant area, and the expenses that would incur.
On the other hand if the victim were libertarian they should have just let him die, since he failed to negotiate the proper monitoring contracts and insurance needed for his trip. He could have had a direct and final lesson about risk mitigation.
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.
But really, the government is not entitled to have ubiquitous surveillance, so this whole thing is meaningless.
I am not sure you understand the meaning of the word ubiquitous
1. The government does not have enough money for the hundreds of thousands of drones and their pilots, the hundreds of thousands of analysts watching these videos to find wrong doing, and the massive amount of storage needed to log all these video feeds.
2. It has already been ruled illegal to look inside homes, even with FLIR, without a search warrant.
3. One can not be identified inside most buildings even with FLIR.
With the few thousand drones that may be used in the entire US the surveillance is far from ubiquitous. However, the government is entitled to do the things they do today and spend less money doing it.
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.
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
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!
Um... so do private citizens and corporations.
I knew someone would say that. The government has the power to do so by its very nature, and that combined with the fact that all the information would be gathered for a single source (the government) makes the government's use of drones far different from a private citizen's use of drones.
Corporations might be a bit similar, though.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I am not sure you understand the meaning of the word ubiquitous
No, I do. After the silly little Boston bombings, a number of people started demanding we put government cameras everywhere in public places. As unmanned drones become cheaper, ubiquitous surveillance (and selective surveillance, which is another problem) becomes easier even if they don't have enough people to constantly watch the videos (they wouldn't need that).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
1. The "single person" has access to youtube and the internet and can post the video for anyone to view.
The government has far more power to ruin lives than a citizen, and (under the pretense of security) has been shown that it is more than willing to do so.
2. "The government" is not a monolithic organization.
It doesn't need to be.
To use drones en masse will take a lot of money
Right now, yes. I was thinking of the future. At this point, I'm more concerned about the government installing surveillance cameras everywhere in public places than I am unmanned drones, but that doesn't mean that I can't be concerned with how drones would be used in the future.
There is a lot of truth in that statement.
Then allow the government to install cameras throughout your house. If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to fear? The government is made up of perfect angels who would never hurt anyone, abuse their power, or make a mistake.
Any tool can be abused. Should night sticks taken form police because they could be used to beat up an innocent person?
I did not say that drones should be banned or any other such thing. I just warned that they could be abused and that they likely will be (just like ubiquitous surveillance cameras likely would be).
Some technologies are more open to abuse than others, and I believe those are what we must watch out for. Banning night sticks isn't viable, and sometimes we must accept that certain things are necessary evils, but there is no inherent reason to accept drones.
They need to be prosecuted and sent to jail as has happened many times.
That has never worked. The government openly violates the constitution and nothing happens.
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
Then allow the government to install cameras throughout your house. If you don't have anything to hide, what do you have to fear?
I just love how "privacy advocates" jump from cameras in public places to cameras in people's homes. That is a huge leap and fear mongering. There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces but there is an expectation of privacy in one's homes. The expectation has been upheld many time; most recently the ban on using infrared cameras without a search warrant.
Banning night sticks isn't viable, and sometimes we must accept that certain things are necessary evils, but there is no inherent reason to accept drones.
I disagree. Drones can be used in many instances to catch criminals. I see drones the same as I see helicopters or patrol cars. They all need people to run and cost quite a bit of money.
Your privacy line is not the only one. I see a difference between private spaces and public spaces. You seem to think they are the same.
Ubiquitous is an absolute term and means "everywhere, all the time". I have shown areas that drones can not see into therefore it may be "pervasive" it is not "ubiquitous".
As unmanned drones become cheaper, ubiquitous surveillance (and selective surveillance, which is another problem) becomes easier even if they don't have enough people to constantly watch the videos (they wouldn't need that).
So there are days of video in storage that no one ever looks at. So what? If they need to look through them to find a bomber I say go for it. Maybe fewer bombers will try if they know there is zero chance of getting away with it. I realize it will not stop suicide bombers but it may help track their handlers.
I just love how "privacy advocates" jump from cameras in public places to cameras in people's homes.
I merely used your own logic against you; that is, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear? It does not matter whether we're talking about public or private places; your logic should apply to either. You can commit crimes in private places too, remember?
There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces
There is some degree of privacy even in public places. Some European countries seem to understand this.
I disagree. Drones can be used in many instances to catch criminals.
We can (and have) easily go without drones, but a police force (or one that's allowed to use certain basic tools to apprehend criminals who sometimes are heavily armed) would be much more difficult to go without.
I would not mind drones being used in very, very select circumstances, but I do not want to see them constantly flying over my house. That is not a current problem, but one that I can foresee being a problem. I was merely warning against surveillance.
My own government (the US government) molests people who want to get on a plane. I don't place a lot of trust in them to use tools responsibly, so I'm rather wary of letting them have shiny new toys.
You seem to think they are the same.
Nothing I said indicates that.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Ubiquitous is an absolute term and means "everywhere, all the time".
If you want to take it literally, almost nothing is ubiquitous.
So there are days of video in storage that no one ever looks at.
The same is true for government-owned cameras placed in public places. Very nice for selective abuse, yes?
If they need to look through them to find a bomber I say go for it.
Ah, yes... security is all that matters. Maybe fewer people will try to bomb planes if we molest people at airports.
I'd much rather risk being killed by an almost nonexistent threat that have cameras or drones everywhere.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If you want to take it literally, almost nothing is ubiquitous.
My point exactly. If the word does not fit then don't use it. If you use an absolute it better fit or you are just sensationalizing to sound better. It weakens your case as one flaw usually indicates more flaws.
I'd much rather risk being killed by an almost nonexistent threat that have cameras or drones everywhere.
Bombers are only one target. There are bank robbers, muggers, drive by shooters, etc. You seem to ignore the point that there is no expectation of privacy an places where cameras and drones have access.
I was referring to the Chinese rockets.
My point exactly. If the word does not fit then don't use it. If you use an absolute it better fit or you are just sensationalizing to sound better.
But it does fit; I've seen it used that way often and it doesn't cause any confusion.
It weakens your case as one flaw usually indicates more flaws.
Unless you can prove there are other flaws, this is meaningless.
Bombers are only one target. There are bank robbers, muggers, drive by shooters, etc.
Which is exactly what I fear: drones being used for everything you can imagine.
You seem to ignore the point that there is no expectation of privacy an places where cameras and drones have access.
But there are degrees of privacy even in public places, and I fully expect the government to not have cameras and drones everywhere to spy on my every move even in public places. I have some expectation of privacy in public places, and some other countries recognize this, but apparently you're dead set on there not being any privacy whatsoever just because you're in a public place. Courts can rule whatever they please, but I am under no obligation to agree with them.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
But it does fit; I've seen it used that way often and it doesn't cause any confusion.
I am in no way "confused". Using the word "ubiquitous" is an exaggeration and untrue. Just because other people misuse the word does not mean that it is a good thing to do.
I am in no way "confused".
I did not say you were confused.
Using the word "ubiquitous" is an exaggeration
I personally have no problems with exaggerations most of the time, and I do not have a problem with the way I used the word. Something can indeed seem to be ubiquitous even without literally being present everywhere.
Sometimes I do have problems when people say things they don't literally mean or use a word in a certain way just because there's a definition in the dictionary that tells them it's okay to use it that way, but that's generally only in cases where I believe it could cause (or is causing) genuine confusion.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
You would be shocked at how far away a small plane, with special equipment, can track you non stop.
Well, I'm opposed to spying on people in general, not just if it's done with drones. However, some methods of collecting footage are better at collecting large amounts of footage on large amounts of people than others (drones aren't everywhere at the moment, though).
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
This is mostly because the Canadian drone standard load out only comes with moose tranquilizers rather than hell-fire missiles.
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.
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".
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.