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

281–290 of 373 posts

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#281

Post by jstanley »

lelanthran wrote: post #264
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But you could say the same thing about random people in the street that you don't like the look of: it's stupid to wait and see if they're going to murder your kids, so the best thing to do is murder them first.

And no, someone who breaks into a house with the intention of burgling is not an attacker, they're a burglar, regardless of whether other people are in the house. Someone who breaks into a house with the intention of attacking people is an attacker.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#282

Post by dvtrn »

smsm42 wrote: post #271
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.

The dog also doesn't come with an off switch in case you have an important meeting with your CEO, taking it in your home office and there's a squirrel running around...

Oh dear. Can’t say I’ve had that problem...really ever.

How many squirrels have you had to chase/escort out so far?

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#283

Post by koolba »

medstrom wrote: post #148
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.

In the USA, perhaps. Most of the world isn't that lethal.

Having the right to defend yourself from home invaders with deadly force is a right that has existed long before the laws of man were codified. Hell, it’s a right even animals recognize.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#284

Post by mlcrypto »

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.

That reminds me of the argument about sentience lately. Why can't a neural network be sentient if all our actions have been trained by interacting with the world since birth?

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#285

Post by kube-system »

osigurdson wrote: post #274
kube-system wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pools don't jump over fences, though.

In what reality are kids inadvertently wandering into junkyards and getting harmed by junkyard dogs in large numbers?

Kids were brought up as the reason that pools are fenced. Because adults tend to have motor controls and an understanding of their ability to swim, so pools aren't usually a danger to adults.

By contrast, people of all ages can be bitten by vicious dogs ... and shouldn't be. Yet, they are, in large numbers.

Dogs go to the vet. Dogs jump over fences, they run out open gates. People go to junkyards. There are many opportunities for a junkyard dog to interact with people it shouldn't bite.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#286

Post by lelanthran »

jstanley wrote: post #281
lelanthran wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

But you could say the same thing about random people in the street that you don't like the look of: it's stupid to wait and see if they're going to murder your kids, so the best thing to do is murder them first. And no, someone who breaks into a house with the intention of burgling is not an attacker, they're a burglar , regardless of whether other people are in the house. Someone who breaks into a house with the int…

> But you could say the same thing about random people in the street that you don't like the look of: it's stupid to wait and see if they're going to murder your kids, so the best thing to do is murder them first.

No, you couldn't, because they did not use force to get into the space of your children.

> And no, someone who breaks into a house with the intention of burgling is not an attacker, they're a burglar, regardless of whether other people are in the house.

If they wanted to burgle they'd come when there was no one home. The fact that they came specifically when people are there is because they don't care about doing damage to the people (in which case, yes, they are attackers), or they came specifically for the people.

Really, if a burglar wants something, there's tons of opportunities when the house is empty.

> Someone who breaks into a house with the intention of attacking people is an attacker.

You only find out about their intention after they have done the damage (or lack thereof).

The only clear indication you have of their intent is that they deliberately waited until the people were home.

I am saying it is stupid to wait until after someone has killed your child to defend that child, especially when that person intentionally waits for people to be home.

It's hard to feel sympathy for attackers who wait for children to be home before they break in. If they didn't want to be dealt with as attackers, they should break in when no one is home.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#287

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

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.

Worst part about it was that it was probably the same person breaking in both times.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#288

Post by munk-a »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #182
mauvehaus wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My former neighbor's father owned a junkyard with a fairly mean junkyard dog. Said dog did its job with a would-be thief, and the local government made them exterminate the dog. Apparently the logic behind that decision included the argument that the fact that they posted a "beware of dog" sign indicated that they knew the dog was dangerous (duh, that's sort of the point) and therefore shouldn't be given further chan…

And what would the local government had done had the owner happened to be there and had put a bullet in the thief instead of waiting for the dog to do it? It's not about the outcome or the dog. It's about sending a message to everyone else in town that that level of defending one's property is not going to be let slide.

Depending on the jurisdiction you might end up paying quite a lot of money. Potentially lethal boobytraps left in derelict buildings are mostly illegal in the US[1] and in other western countries shooting a thief is generally illegal unless you can prove fear of bodily harm since you are escalating a situation from damage to property to damage to body. While the US is rife with stand your ground laws - most of the rest of the western world finds using potentially lethal force in response to property damage abhorrent.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV9ppvY8Nx4

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#289

Post by netr0ute »

mlcrypto wrote: post #284
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.

That reminds me of the argument about sentience lately. Why can't a neural network be sentient if all our actions have been trained by interacting with the world since birth?

If our minds are like computer neural networks, then we can only achieve sentience by priming an existing "human person" neural model with data, which is how every human has worked.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#290

Post by lmm »

iakov wrote: post #259
prvit wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also a perfectly normal thing in cities in most of the world.

In the ones that have an "outside" for the kids, sure. In my experience, most of the bigger cities in Europe just don't have the space for the kids to hang out. Sure there are parks with playgrounds here and there, but they are separated by kilometers of concrete and stone. At least suburbs have the spaces and the clean air.

Cities have a lot more for kids to do within a kilometer or two, IME. In a suburb you may have "space" but it's all just people's lawns and strips of grass next to the road.
Post reply on HN