Reply With Quote
No, they have you fooled. That is only a 0.8 megapixel sample reduced image. Their 192 megapixel camera has far more resolution than that!Seriously, did you read the article?
This is what a screen shot from the video looks like:
Seriously, did you read the article?
This is what a screen shot from the video looks like:
No, they have you fooled. That is only a 0.8 megapixel sample reduced image. Their 192 megapixel camera has far more resolution than that!Seriously, did you read the article?
This is what a screen shot from the video looks like:
You are making up now WC. That was a screen shot of the analysts console. That's the resolution they are working with.
Well I wouldn't refuse to let a black surgeon operate on me just because he's black...does that count as a moral?
I don't stalk women online...is that a moral WC?
And were they zoomed out to full detail? Do you know that as fact?
Do you know for a fact that image isn't zoomed in all the way?
You don't, do you...
The images are not single pixels. At one point I did say it depends on the resolution. My questioning Snakeboy's morality comes from the silly notions of a 7 ft. cop, and what followed. My error is not making it clear by just quoting any of his posts.
I don't either.
Like a ignorant arrogant child, you don't realize that words have meaning. Pointing out someone is open for possible stalking is not stalking. My mistake was the way I presented the problem.
I suggest you look up the dictionary and legal definition of stalking. You really expose your stupidity, ignorance, etc. when you keep bearing false witness after being corrected of the facts.
Geez WC, just read the article.
I did.
Early on I mentioned the megapixels.
I don't trust what people say.
If I have a camera that can see a person smiling 10 miles away, but I don't want to revel all the capabilities of something, I might say I can see them smile 1 mile away.
It isn't a lie, but it is the complete set of facts either.
Military fighter jets... Say for example they say mach 2.7+... They don't tell you the actual fastest they can go. That's classified. Maybe they go mach 4.3...
I can't believe that you, of all people trust what someone else that you don't even know, writes for an article.
192 megapixels to cover a 30 mile area -- that's still pretty grainy
I'd suggest watching the video in the link WH posted
Are you suggesting that you know for certain, that they don't have a zoom lens setup?
You know... variable coverage capability?
That would be pretty stupid if they didn't.... Such simple technology...
OK, they disclosed they can cover a 30 square mile area. Does explicitly mean they cannot zoom in to a 1 square mile area or less?
Maybe they can travel at light speed. If your just going to make up in your head why set the bar so low?
Wow.
I'm not making anything up.
I'm pointing out what is unknown, and probable.
is this your bull blanket excuse to believe what you want and discredit what you dont like to hear?
Discredit what?
Are you saying it is impossible that they are not under reporting the capabilities?
Please now...
Care to hang your reputation on that unknown?
They might have secret x-ray vision too. What the was I thinking?
lol
if you go by the "i dont believe what people say" as an absolute... then there is no legitimacy to government or anything they've ever done. its impractical. doesn't mean you have to buy everything as an absolute truth, but its an irresponsible stance to hold as a generality
technology is outrunning 4th Amendment protections. people can say technology is neutral all they want, bottom line, improvements render us more vulnerable to government.
the notion that only the guilty have something to fear is naive; we're governed by men and women and not angelic heroes.
same goes for the police. they do an honorable job, but they ain't sainty-saints either. assuming they are is asking for trouble.
road to , good intentions:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-10492397.html
Unlikely. I see you cant take this serious. Thermal is very expensive for low resolution. Ever see Flir's pricing? x-ray would be much higher yet.
One of the few things we agree on.
good stuff.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions