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

361–370 of 373 posts

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#361

Post by copperx »

mos_basik wrote: post #266
b112 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

This raises a question.

"Don't overestimate how dumb they are" is logical and correct. However, because "how dumb they are" is in the sentence, it emphasizes, well, that they are dumb, which is not what the OP intended to say.

Writing it as "don't underestimate how smart they are" is more readable, although logically, it's stating the same thing.

Even better, I would have written it as "don't underestimate how smart they can be."

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#362

Post by duxup »

FredPret wrote: post #265
duxup wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ah that makes sense.

Just a whole different lifestyle for those dogs.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#363

Post by jstanley »

lelanthran wrote: post #286
jstanley wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, regar…

> 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.

But if you just preemptively murder anyone you want, you'll never know whether they were going to kill your child or not, and you'll think you're always right.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#364

Post by lelanthran »

jstanley wrote: post #363
lelanthran wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, regar…

> 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. But if you just preemptively murder anyone you want, you'll never know whether they were going to kill your child or not, and you'll think you're always right.

> But if you just preemptively murder anyone you want, you'll never know whether they were going to kill your child or not, and you'll think you're always right.

Who said that I want to preemptively murder random people?

I'm only preemptively hurting attackers. If people don't want to be dealt with as attackers, they should not attack.

After all, if they're only there to take your stuff, they can do so when you're not home.

Your logic that people who attack you should be left alone is, quite frankly, weird.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#365

Post by runjake »

userbinator wrote: post #309
runjake wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be mentioned here that posting these kinds of macho signs are not a good idea. They may open you up to criminal and/or civil penalties, depending on your local laws and the whims of the judicial system. “He was just looking to waste somebody!” I cringe any time I read my local neighborhood watch Facebook group and some internet tough guy comments with “They (criminal) better not show up at my house!”

I think it very heavily depends on where you live.

Hence my wording: depending on your local laws and the whims of the judicial system.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#366

Post by jstanley »

lelanthran wrote: post #364
jstanley wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. But if you just preemptively murder anyone you want, you'll never know whether they were going to kill your child or not, and you'll think you're always right.

> But if you just preemptively murder anyone you want, you'll never know whether they were going to kill your child or not, and you'll think you're always right. Who said that I want to preemptively murder random people? I'm only preemptively hurting attackers. If people don't want to be dealt with as attackers, they should not attack. After all, if they're only there to take your stuff, they can do so when you're no…

You're only preemptively hurting "attackers", but you've redefined "attackers" to mean "anyone you want to preemptively hurt".

I expect in the vast majority of cases, if someone breaks into your home while you're inside, it's because they didn't know you were inside.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#367

Post by watwut »

lelanthran wrote: post #352
watwut wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are large parts of world, where this will get you to prison.

> There are large parts of world, where this will get you to prison. There is no country that I know off where defending your kids against a successful home invasion will send you to prison. None.

This is literally not true when defending involves killing. Self defense laws swings widely.

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#368

Post by lelanthran »

jstanley wrote: post #366
lelanthran wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you just preemptively murder anyone you want, you'll never know whether they were going to kill your child or not, and you'll think you're always right. Who said that I want to preemptively murder random people? I'm only preemptively hurting attackers. If people don't want to be dealt with as attackers, they should not attack. After all, if they're only there to take your stuff, they can do so when you're no…

You're only preemptively hurting "attackers", but you've redefined "attackers" to mean "anyone you want to preemptively hurt". I expect in the vast majority of cases, if someone breaks into your home while you're inside, it's because they didn't know you were inside.

> You're only preemptively hurting "attackers", but you've redefined "attackers" to mean "anyone you want to preemptively hurt".

No, I did not. How are you defining "someone who uses force to get to me"?

My definition of an attacker specifically requires that they force their way to me and my children.

You are on some insane mission to trivialise the danger from someone who is prepared to force their way to you. Why?

(I'm generally curious, btw - why is your expectation that someone who forces their way into a house is peaceful by nature?)

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#369

Post by Thorrez »

classichasclass wrote: post #236
registeredcorn wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not in this house. The alarm system has a cell connection. By the time you find it, the alarm signal will have already been transmitted.

Would a cell jammer stop it?

Re: Fake Dog for Home Security

#370

Post by lelanthran »

watwut wrote: post #367
lelanthran wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are large parts of world, where this will get you to prison. There is no country that I know off where defending your kids against a successful home invasion will send you to prison. None.

This is literally not true when defending involves killing. Self defense laws swings widely.

> This is literally not true when defending involves killing. Self defense laws swings widely.

Can you name a jurisdiction where "defending your kids against a successful home invasion will send you to prison."?

I mean, that's specifically the scenario I started with, isn't it?

Post reply on HN