Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fake Dog for Home Security

t0.vc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 373 posts

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#261

Post by willcipriano »

mellavora wrote: post #242
willcipriano wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> say you solve the above and decide to deploy the gun. We're talking about a handgun not a artillery peice, "deployment" is taking it out of a biometric gun safe, 5 seconds max. Also you wouldn't open fire on someone just beacuse they are near your boat.

ok. So you are on your boat. Small craft with three people is rapidly approaching on a direct course. You are nervous so you grab the gun (probably more than 5 seconds because you are out on deck and the biometric safe is fixed in the cabin, but I'll give you a pass on that). Where do you aim the gun? At them? At the deck? They see you are holding a gun, get a different look on their face, and one starts to reach und…

> Where do you aim the gun? At them? At the deck?

Nothing. You don't aim a firearm at anything you don't want to destroy. Until they take action like attempting to board the vessel, you don't even want them to know you have it. Keep it concealed until you need it.

In this situation the first thing you want to reach for is the radio. The gun is more for situations where you would be below deck sleeping and hear someone kicking in the door. Going up against a fully armed team of men isn't possible as a single person with small arms, small arms are useful for one or two burglars breaking into boats on the slip though.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#262

Post by actually_a_dog »

registeredcorn wrote: post #209
actually_a_dog wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any case, the cost of a dog bowl and some free tennis balls is minimal compared to the potential benefit if even one break-in is prevented. When I sold security systems, I learned that one of those lawn signs alone that says "Protected by XYZ Security" has a deterrent factor. Cameras (even if they're fake or deactivated/unmonitored) also have a pretty significant deterrent factor. See https://www.angi.com/articles…

I agree with the majority of your statement, but I would personally shy away from a specific "Monitored by company" sign, because I try to avoid advertising my security procedures. "Oh, they use Y instead of X? Guess I'll need to bring that other device, instead." I suppose a home owner could be really tricky, and just buy the sign for Y, but have a security system for X? Oh! On a technical note, I was watching a TV…

Yes, there is some truth to it. Many older systems communicate with the central station over an ordinary telephone line. More modern systems will use either a cellular communications link or VOIP.

But, the real truth here is that most criminals are pretty unsophisticated and won't even bother cutting phone lines or other cables. Most break-ins also happen through the front door, so, although it sounds great (and it is actually pretty great) to have contact sensors on every window and blanket the whole place with motion detectors, it's not really necessary. If anything, you only really need sensors on the first floor, because in spite of how the movies sometimes depict these sophisticated, cat burgler types, it's mostly just thugs who bash in or take a crowbar to your front door. That's also why advertising exactly what company your security system is from isn't a big deal: they don't care. They see "security system" and just move on to the next house.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#263

Post by yamazakiwi »

tristor wrote: post #234
yamazakiwi wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to take away from anything else you've said because I mostly agree but this "Viral TikTok Trend" was not viral nor big. I would be careful fearmongering when this micro-trend that died almost as fast as it was found is essentially the same as an over-reported and exaggerated 4chan exposé.

I don't think anything in my mention of it blew it out of proportion. FWIW, my wife is in the IT department of a school district and this was a major issue for them, nearly every one of their 60-some-odd campuses had at least one incident caused by this trend. Sure, it was short-lived, but it was also very widespread and affected even private/charter schools in well-to-do areas like what my wife works at, not just pu…

First, obviously I agree that crime can be influenced by social media trends.

Second, I'm sorry for sounding dismissive of something that most likely directly affected you. I'm trying to argue that I believe your larger point is wrong. I'm contributing to your additive that goes farther than "Facebook causes burglaries."

You're blaming the people equally or more than the organizations. You're saying that children's behavior has changed thus allowing more people to be manipulated in this way, where I'm saying the tools organizations now have to cause harm is a more important callout than pontificating about self-respect/reliance. If TikTok was, for example, invented in the 70's, and your theory of a shift in self-reliance is correct, it's incredibly likely the same thing would have happened anyway regardless of how much self-respect children had back then in comparison.

That being said, I think talking about a shift in self-respect is in interesting conversation, albeit crotchety. I will say that I believe every generation feels this way about younger generations. It's also incredibly easy to have self-respect driven by pride which is it's own problem.

Edit: You were saying someone else was being dismissive, my fault.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#264

Post by lelanthran »

CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #139
cbozeman wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel this way too. If you're breaking into someone's home, you're asking to die.

I don't like burglars, but a death penalty without trial is a bit much. And what about accidents and misunderstandings?

> I don't like burglars, but a death penalty without trial is a bit much. And what about accidents and misunderstandings?

I'm tired of this trope, repeated several times in this, that is used to excuse people breaking into houses.

Anyone breaking into a house while people are in it are not burglars, they're attackers.

It's perfectly okay to defend your family with lethal force.

Criminals breaking into the car in the driveway? No point in lethal force. Collect from the insurance.

Criminals breaking into the house your kids are sleeping in? No amount of insurance is going to replace them, so it is stupid to wait and see if the criminals will direct lethal force towards your kids before defending yourself.

I repeat, it is stupid to rely on the goodwill of attackers in your home to not harm your children!.

Stop trivialising attacks by calling it theft.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#265

Post by FredPret »

duxup wrote: post #196
FredPret wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the spayed dogs are on another level regarding aggression. I’m sure it’s psychological

I wonder if they're just used to being around non spayed dogs / so they're kinda on edge in a way. Local suburban / trained dogs around here mostly just want to play with each other / random people / kids. I think they might be used to that kinda lifestyle even if just by example from other dogs.

Lots of people back home would keep their dogs in the yard all the time. The dogs wouldn't really ever socialize with the neighbours' dogs (maybe that's the issue?) For a lot of these dogs, if they ever got loose, they'd go and bite someone as soon as possible. This is true even/especially for the dogs of the rich, who have very easy lives.

But with Canadians, I'm never scared of their dogs, because at worst they'll hump me!

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#266

Post by mos_basik »

b112 wrote: post #175
copperx wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the OP was talking about overestimating dumbness, and it being bad for protecting against home invaders. It still doesn't make sense to me.

He thought a camera would be good enough, but the thief was smart enough to cover his face. He over estimated how dumb the crook was, for the solution (camera), required a thief to walk around showing his face. See? He overestimated how dumb crooks are, and was robbed.

Thanks! I think reread this subthread about five times before it clicked that "overestimate" was truly the word OP intended to use and there was a valid point being made via that word.

Totally changes the meaning of the comment if one assumes that it was a typo and OP intended to use "underestimate".

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#267

Post by tharkun__ »

kube-system wrote: post #256
stanislavb wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d say that lots of areas in Australia are like that. Even in big cities like Syd and Melb.

I live in a medium sized US city and my truck has been parked on a city street with tools in it, unlocked, for two years. Most people lock their doors here, but even in a city known for a medium amount of crime, it isn't really that bad.

Opposite anecdote: car was broken into to steal the stereo (yes its been a while ;)). The door lock was damaged and wouldn't close any longer.

A day later the car was broken into again. While the lock was still broken and no stereo in the car. Someone smashed in the side window and left the door ajar too. Nothing got stolenthat time around.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#268

Post by vxNsr »

nimbius wrote: post #186

anecdotal story: my old rottweiler pepper once stopped a neighborhood kid from stealing a plasma cutter out of my garage. her pups had recently littered next to the lawnmower and she was sleeping under the table saw at the time. she had managed to chew him up badly enough to need an ambulance, and at the time it was a pretty horrifying experience for everyone involved, but eight years later his parents and I are pret…

> ive even driven him to a substance abuse program a few times.

I’m sorry.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#269

Post by kube-system »

tharkun__ wrote: post #267
kube-system wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a medium sized US city and my truck has been parked on a city street with tools in it, unlocked, for two years. Most people lock their doors here, but even in a city known for a medium amount of crime, it isn't really that bad.

Opposite anecdote: car was broken into to steal the stereo (yes its been a while ;)). The door lock was damaged and wouldn't close any longer. A day later the car was broken into again. While the lock was still broken and no stereo in the car. Someone smashed in the side window and left the door ajar too. Nothing got stolenthat time around.

The one time I had my car broken into was in a nice quiet town with low crime. But I was on a not-so-great street. Crime is pretty localized. Most criminals don't go very far out of their way.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#270

Post by kleer001 »

dvtrn wrote: post #235

> The dog has a lot of false positives from the cameras being triggered by car headlights or small animals. My real dog has the same feature, so you’re at least doing a good job mimicking nature, heh.

Interesting! They might be both working from a similar algorithm.
Post reply on HN