181–190 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China have a "Made-in-China" plan, one of its goal is good old control of means of production. Is there something like that in the US?
The petrodollar/dollarization of the global economic. Also global naval hegemony. Who do you think polices all the world's trade routes?
Do other countries put US hardware and software companies on blacklists for their involvement with DoD? If so, then I think quite a few major US tech companies would be unable to do business outside the US and Europe.
The US has ITAR. If you have certain government contracts you are prohibited from selling products or providing access to certain foreign nations (blacklists), or a complete export blanket ban. For instance, I recently started investing in an excitingly expensive hobby, night vision. The tubes in those things are so heavily restricted that I cannot even let a foreign national touch them, technically. Which makes it i…
My partner would be happy if I could not tell her or show her the cool stuff I work on :P.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the majority of smartphone's existence no permission was necessary, probably because no one ever considered it. Then it was learned stores, for example Target, were using their mobile app to broadcast Bluetooth signals in order to track shoppers movement around the store. So around 2019 Android added it to the general location permission to use Bluetooth for anything other than audio transmission to/from a paired…
> So around 2019 Android added it to the general location permission to use Bluetooth for anything other than audio transmission to/from a paired device if device pairing is handled by the OS, hidden from the app. Stores don't need your permission or even their own app to be installed on your phone in order to use bluetooth to track people as they move around their stores. If you have bluetooth enabled on your device…
They even have a patent for that exact thing: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/facebook-phone-tracking-pate...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>which is quite important for authorities to track down violators no, it is not. it is yet another power grab by the FAA and federal authorities to increase the surveillance state. I should not be required to broadcast my signal to the federal government to prove I am not going to commit a crime, that is the exact backwards of how the legal system is suppose to work
> I should not be required to broadcast my signal to the federal government to prove I am not going to commit a crime, that is the exact backwards of how the legal system is suppose to work You're participating in airspace, and if you want to participate in airspace you have to comply with the rules for participation to not endanger others. In ye olde times, you had to do a pilot exam, and planes and choppers were/ar…
Further this assume that I agreed with the "ye olde times" regulations, I dont. I largely disagree with all federal regulations for a multitude of reasons even going to the very basic that no where in the US Constitution is the FAA an authorized role of the federal government, at most it should be a state law not a federal law
The Ukrainian-Russo war has shown the military the power of offensive drones. You think they are going to allow civilians to own such powerful potential weapons in the future? I think offensive drone warfare is just scratching the surface. I can think of a few modifications to drones, I've yet to see in Ukraine, that could increase their lethality 10x.
Both sides are purchasing these specific DJI drones in large quantities to be used by personnel on the ground to spot each other. It is a commodity not unlike binoculars were a century ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's a lot more stupid to assume that laws put in place to allow for single fire muskets that took significant amounts of time to load and fire should automatically equally apply to machine guns. We should be able to draw a clear and logical line between the kinds of guns the people who wrote the constitution envisioned the American people owning and the kinds of guns we have today, but obviously not everyone…
single fire muskets... or fucking warships and cannon.
Stupid question, but this would be relevant for the market: if people can't buy DJI drones in the US, which drones would they buy? Recreational, sports, or industrial use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both sides are purchasing these specific DJI drones in large quantities to be used by personnel on the ground to spot each other. It is a commodity not unlike binoculars were a century ago.
But the obvious difference is that binoculars were not sold with citizen from the other country attached who would stand near and occasionally would peer through and also report to office worker exact position of the binoculars owner AND also recite content of his personal notebook. Quite difference isn't it?
It's not like the battlefield will have reliable wi-fi/4g coverage anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So are we better than them, or not?
What does that even mean? Do we have the moral high ground letting a foreign corporation make money from our citizens and send the profits back to that country with no reciprocity? Which moral framework says that that is good?
You know. Capitalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The petrodollar/dollarization of the global economic. Also global naval hegemony. Who do you think polices all the world's trade routes?
It's not quite so clear anymore, e.g. Black Sea
https://gcaptain.com/us-navy-ships-stay-home-nato-flexes-bla...