Drones aren't the technology we need...

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #35,778 by hnick 4/17/02 2:54:49 PM Reply	Drones aren't the technology we need... What we need would be something more like Heinlein's Fair Witness. Journalism is pretty much dead these days. The hacks that we have are intrested in selling paper or air-time. There is no doubt in my mind that reporters or their editors would go for the "entertainment" value of tanks and bulldozers crushing houses and maybe even people (yeah! just think of the ratings!!) rather than attempt to show an unbiased well analyzed narrative of what actually happened. Hey, they have the special FX of an Arnold movie without the cost (to them, of course...) Reporters are pretty useless. They could just as usefully bring in lawyers with the troops. my .02 Hugh
Post #35,784 by Ashton 4/17/02 3:59:22 PM Reply	Exactly! 'Fair Witness' is dead-on. But WHO amongst us ???
Post #35,805 by inthane-chan 4/17/02 5:03:30 PM Reply	Ah, but drones are just the start... ...if EVERYBODY has drones, and not just the press corps, and enough pictures get out and around, then statistically an image of what has really happened is creatable. That's the premise of The Transparent Society - everybody observes everybody else, no secrets. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #35,806 by hnick 4/17/02 5:06:15 PM Reply	Doesn't matter... wouldn't work Fair Witnesses would not work in our society because an unemotional strictly factual account is not exciting to the masses and would not sell paper/air-time. And because the trade would not be valued, it would be fairly difficult to get an intelligent, educated person to train and dedicate their life to such a discipline. Just cause I can spec it doesn't mean I can implement it... Pity, Hugh
Post #35,811 by Ashton 4/17/02 5:54:16 PM Reply	An important minority* would value them, but (* a handful among the minority who now even vote, that is) it's moot: only those on a course to genuine adulthood might apply for training.. Even then.. they would have to cultivate abnormal characteristics, present in only a small sampple of the species. Which current handful of genuine 'adults' - might train them? See? - not ready yet. Ashton

Please, tell me this isn't true. - (pwhysall) - (39) - April 16, 2002, 07:47:59 AM EDT

I've never been in the army... - (Arkadiy) - April 16, 2002, 09:58:27 AM EDT

Its true - (boxley) - (19) - April 16, 2002, 10:06:07 AM EDT

Left? - (pwhysall) - (1) - April 16, 2002, 11:28:02 AM EDT

Same place people in london went during the blitz - (boxley) - April 16, 2002, 11:31:16 AM EDT

But why lie about it then? - (Brandioch) - (13) - April 16, 2002, 12:15:48 PM EDT

You can't let the Red Cross into a combat zone - (rsf) - (12) - April 16, 2002, 03:17:58 PM EDT

Only once. - (Brandioch) - (11) - April 16, 2002, 04:39:57 PM EDT

I'll spell it out for you - (rsf) - (10) - April 16, 2002, 05:05:47 PM EDT

Try spelling it out again. - (Brandioch) - (9) - April 16, 2002, 07:16:28 PM EDT

I can't comment beyond this post - (rsf) - April 16, 2002, 07:45:02 PM EDT

Intention does matter - (3)) - (7) - April 16, 2002, 09:47:16 PM EDT

Yep. - (Brandioch) - (6) - April 16, 2002, 11:06:39 PM EDT

Actually, he's got a point. - (inthane-chan) - (5) - April 17, 2002, 02:01:16 PM EDT

Drones aren't the technology we need... - (hnick) - (4) - April 17, 2002, 02:54:49 PM EDT

Exactly! 'Fair Witness' is dead-on. But WHO amongst us ??? -NT - (Ashton) - (3) - April 17, 2002, 03:59:22 PM EDT

Ah, but drones are just the start... - (inthane-chan) - April 17, 2002, 05:03:30 PM EDT

Doesn't matter... wouldn't work - (hnick) - (1) - April 17, 2002, 05:06:15 PM EDT

An important minority* would value them, but - (Ashton) - April 17, 2002, 05:54:16 PM EDT

Heh. - (mmoffitt) - (2) - April 16, 2002, 12:16:29 PM EDT

At this point in time..... - (Brandioch) - April 16, 2002, 12:20:39 PM EDT

My guess? Not many, maybe none. - (3)) - April 16, 2002, 03:06:43 PM EDT

It isn't - (3)) - (5) - April 16, 2002, 11:36:08 AM EDT

Yep, they sure did. - (SpiceWare) - (2) - April 16, 2002, 12:16:51 PM EDT

Interesting article. - (Brandioch) - (1) - April 16, 2002, 12:26:31 PM EDT

It is on the Editorial/Opinions page -NT - (SpiceWare) - April 16, 2002, 02:27:46 PM EDT

Re. 'lying' - (Ashton) - (1) - April 16, 2002, 07:35:15 PM EDT

There is ONE way to "know". - (Brandioch) - April 16, 2002, 11:12:00 PM EDT

It is not - (bluke) - (11) - April 16, 2002, 04:08:42 PM EDT

Fascinating. - (Brandioch) - (10) - April 16, 2002, 05:00:09 PM EDT

There you go again - (wharris2) - (7) - April 16, 2002, 06:57:28 PM EDT

I'm just reading the articles. - (Brandioch) - (6) - April 16, 2002, 07:10:03 PM EDT

Ah, so Israel should just lay back and let bombers in. - (wharris2) - (5) - April 17, 2002, 01:27:47 AM EDT

So, "reporters" == "bombers" to you? Fascinating. - (Brandioch) - (4) - April 17, 2002, 12:36:18 PM EDT

So Reporters==evidence? - (boxley) - (3) - April 17, 2002, 12:56:39 PM EDT

Reporters == evidence. - (Brandioch) - (2) - April 17, 2002, 01:47:03 PM EDT

flesh not rope :) -NT - (boxley) - (1) - April 17, 2002, 01:53:20 PM EDT

TMI - (Brandioch) - April 17, 2002, 01:58:52 PM EDT

That is the word. - (static) - (1) - April 17, 2002, 08:24:00 AM EDT

It's a nasty bit of business, killing. - (Brandioch) - April 17, 2002, 12:52:16 PM EDT

(This message was left blank.)
65 ms