SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey, who left Facebook in March, wants to build a wall... with LIDAR sensors:
Palmer Freeman Luckey was the kind of wunderkind Silicon Valley venerates. When he was just 21, he made an overnight fortune selling his start-up, a company called Oculus VR that made virtual-reality gear, to Facebook for $2 billion in 2014.
But the success story took a sideways turn this year when Mr. Luckey was pressured to leave Facebook months after news spread that he had secretly donated to an organization dedicated to spreading anti-Hillary Clinton internet memes.
[...] And he has a new start-up in the works, a company that is developing surveillance technology that could be deployed on borders between countries and around military bases, according to three people familiar with the plan who asked for anonymity because it's still confidential. They said the investment fund run by Peter Thiel, a technology adviser to Mr. Trump, planned to support the effort.
In an emailed statement, Mr. Luckey confirmed that he was working on a defense-related start-up. "We are spending more than ever on defense technology, yet the pace of innovation has been slowing for decades," he wrote. "We need a new kind of defense company, one that will save taxpayer dollars while creating superior technology to keep our troops and citizens safer."
Also at BBC, CNET, Boing Boing, PCMag, and Engadget.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:27AM (24 children)
So human ( or AI ) monitoring of alarms will be necessary.
.
.
Rumor has it that the sensors which surround Area 51 have some sort of "sniffer" technology which is able to distinguish between wild animals and humans. Such tech may be needed along with the LIDAR sensors. I've personally witnessed seagulls setting off laser perimeter alarms at a secure facility, and it drives the human guards bonkers and wastes a lot of time.
.
.
It's a shame this stuff is necessary, but I've seen enough bad behavior by illegal Mexicans in the US that I would like to see all illegal Mexican immigrants returned to Mexico in a manner which would discourage them from returning. Sure, some of the Mexicans are good, but the law doesn't provide a means of sorting "good" illegals from "bad" illegals. And if they are illegal, then until that law is changed, they have NO LEGAL RIGHT to remain in the US, period. Spare me any SJW liberal bullshit, I've heard it all and my answer to every bit of it is : You cannot cherry-pick which laws you want to obey. End of discussion.
.
.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:51AM
": You cannot cherry-pick which laws you want to obey. End of discussion."
Unless you're rich.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:56AM (1 child)
One of the articles or comments I read about it mentioned animals triggering the LIDAR. It seems like an easy machine learning problem, something already being considered with autonomous vehicles, and not something that needs Area 51 grade expertise. Obviously, autonomous vehicles need to be able to identify what kinds of objects they are detecting.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:06PM
Area 51 is easier. They have enough security to check those things out any time there's a question about it. Plus, they use multiple kinds of sensors, so they can correlate those together to figure out what it is.
The point of the virtual wall is that there's too much border to secure and much of it is literally in the middle of nowhere where the only thing there is the border. Just getting out there to check is rather challenging.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @01:57AM (5 children)
Anyone else feel that someone who ends their opening arguement with "End of discussion", both doesn't understand how a thread works and is a bit of a cunt?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:33AM (4 children)
"Anyone else feel that someone who ends their opening arguement with "End of discussion", both doesn't understand how a thread works and is a bit of a cunt?"
OP here.
I've been using computers and network for longer than you've been alive. So your fantasy that "I don't know how a thread works" is not accurate. I don't give a fuck if you and others want to disagree with what I wrote, and that's why I wrote "End of discussion", because I don't engage in debate with anyone when I know I am correct, which is true in this case. Go ahead and debate amongst yourselves all you like, but I have made it clear I will not discuss this, so your debate will have to rage on without my participation.
As for you thinking I am a "bit of a cunt", I quit caring what other people think about me decades ago. You can say whatever you like about me, I don't care.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:14AM (3 children)
Now I'm confused. Could you break this down for me?
You'd like us to know what you think?
But, you don't care what we think about what you think?
However it's very important to you that we know that you don't care what we think about what you think?
Do you see where I'm getting lost?
At least you're not angry about it all, that's good to know
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:21PM (2 children)
"But, you don't care what we think about what you think?"
To clarify, I know it is pointless to debate things on web forums. No one ever changes his or her mind after such debates. It's just a form of amusement or a way to waste time. And with that in mind, I have more important things to do now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @01:54AM
So, more important things to do now, but not so important that you can't not spare the time to tell us they are important.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 08 2017, @04:48AM
I've changed my mind after such. But it takes someone who competent at reasoning, knows something, and spends some time to actually try to convince someone. And I have to be in error somehow in the first place.
That's good to know. Some of us were giving strong indications that we were concerned why you were posting all this crap instead of an intelligent conversation. But it makes sense now and our concerns are safely put to rest.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:40AM (8 children)
Aaaaand that's why slavery was perfectly okay! Because it was the law!
End of discussion, right? Your reasoning is so awesome...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:52AM (2 children)
Slavery has nothing to do with this discussion.
Perhaps you are intoxicated on drugs or alcohol ? That could explain your impaired thinking.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:18AM
Easy there old chap, you have to read the quote at the top of the post for some context.
Take it step by step, you'll be caught up in no time
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 07 2017, @12:32PM
The grandparent might have skipped a couple of logic steps, but the point is that in the US, prior to 1863 or so, not only was slavery legal, but helping escaped slaves escape was very illegal. Yet people did that [wikipedia.org] anyway at considerable risk to themselves. So in rebuttal to the original assertion that one can't cherry pick laws to obey, we have a fine example of people refusing to obey what they considered immoral law. They successfully "cherry picked" which laws they would obey, which helped a lot of people, contrary to the original poster's assertion otherwise.
The problem with that analogy is that I don't buy that there is a similarly great moral cause furthered by allowing illegal immigration. Instead, I think it's a variety of parties undermining this law for selfish reasons, such as pandering to immigrant votes (and in the long term creating more immigrant votes to pander to in a dynamic with positive feedback - probably the number one reason that there is and has ever been a backlash against illegal immigration in the US in the first place), cheap legally unprotected labor, or merely being cheaper and faster than legally applying for immigration to the US (and other parts of the developed world).
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:27AM (4 children)
Why the fuck is this drivel modded insightful?
Advocacy for adherence to the law is in no way expressing support for every law that ever has existed. It is a perfectly reasonable position to obey the law to the best of your abilities and reject the law all the same. There are a number of legitimate methods to challenge bad laws, such as writing to your representatives, informing your fellow citizens of the downsides of such laws and protesting against them. None of these actions require violating the law in any way. Disobeying the laws just because your personal moral code says otherwise is not a justifiable position. After all, what makes YOU more morally upstanding than the rapist who claims that rape is okay in their personal moral code? The fact that your fee-fees make you feel fuzzy inside when you are doing it and not so fuzzy when they are doing it? Ridiculous.
If you cannot enact your desired social change, you will just have to suck it up and live with it just as all other groups who claim moral high ground on illegal issues. You can always go live somewhere else if you don't like it. Should you choose to ignore the law however, you will rightfully be treated just as any other criminal.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday June 07 2017, @12:34PM (1 child)
Actually, yes, it is. The number one way to express opposition to a law is to break it. If you take that choice off the table, then you've greatly weakened your opposition to the law in question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:01PM
"We are benevolent and tolerant masters. We allow anyone to say whatever they want as long as they don't break the rules. Anyone who breaks the rules is immoral scum and will be sent to federal 'pound me in the ass' prison. Just don't break the laws! Otherwise do whatever you want. We love freedom here."
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:06PM
No. It isn't. Often, when the law is immoral, obeying it is immoral. If the law says that it is illegal to escape from slavery (it did), yet a slave tries anyway, this is (a) not in any way unreasonable, and (b) a thoroughly moral thing to do. Further, if the law required one to return a runaway slave (it did; see the The Fugitive Slave Act, ca. 1850), then the law required others to do something immoral; doing so puts compliant individuals irretrievably in the wrong. When the law is wrong, not only is there no imperative (other than fear and coercion) to obey it, there is a bombproof moral case to disobey it should the issue arise.
The only moral move is to follow moral laws: If the government wants the citizens to obey the laws, it must make only moral laws, and impose only moral consequences. This is (obviously) a goal that should be among the topmost when crafting legislation. Since it isn't, the duty to triage toxic law falls upon the public.
There are many such immoral and toxic laws on the books today, and they make for interesting discussion, albeit a different one and one that certainly includes debate as to the various cases for morality, and what that means. I generally use the slavery laws because the dust has long since settled – any moderately sane person with two wet neurons to rub together can see that coercive slavery is inherently wrong.
I wrote a more extended discussion of this 9/2016 in a (slightly) different context. You can read it here [fyngyrz.com] if you wish.
The bottom line is that strict/rote compliance with the law can result in definitively evil and toxic acts. Don't use the law verbatim. Learn about the law, learn about ethics, develop an understanding of what informed, personal and consensual choice is, carefully devise a relevant morality you can defend, and then use your brain.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Roger Murdock on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:01PM
Not obeying bad laws is another way of challenging them.
Disobeying laws that the vast majority of reasonable people consider to be unjust, and that have no safety implications, can be pretty easy to justify.
Only in simpleton-land do all laws deserve the same level of adherence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:13AM
Sure you can cherry pick the laws to obey, just look at all the highway speeders (nearly every driver) who are otherwise law-abiding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @04:21AM
but I've seen more than enough bad behavior by white skinned folk in the US, where are you going to also deport them/us?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:17PM
>You cannot cherry-pick which laws you want to obey.
Then why aren't you in prison? These days it's pretty much impossible to even walk around the block without breaking a few laws. Seriously - there used to be a show where to win the prize you had to walk around the block without breaking any laws, I can't remember if anyone actually succeeded. And that was decades ago, the legal thicket has gotten even more overgrown since then.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:39PM
Trump does. And hell, he married an illegal immigrant.
If it's good enough for our President, and we allow him to get away with it in broad daylight, then yes you clearly CAN cherry-pick.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 07 2017, @05:42PM (1 child)
If you were conservative, and not just anti-strawman-justice-warrior, you might be concerned about the massive expansion of federal government power required to set up a deportation force capable of tracking down and deporting 11 million people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 08 2017, @04:39PM
That horse has left the barn. We might as well use the capability to secure our homeland.
Truth is, freedom is a luxury that we have squandered. We have failed to resist invasion by hostile cultures. We're on our way to genocide within the century, and the only thing in question is the winner. I prefer that my descendants not be slaughtered, as they will be if they aren't on the winning team.
For all of known civilization, distinct cultures in close proximity has led to violence. It is absurd to think that human nature has suddenly changed, post-WWII or whatever, or that it really isn't violent. You may not seek war, but war seeks you.