Yeah but they failed to adjust for age drift that may occur during the round trip latency of the packet. Unfortunately at intergalactic scale this error can be significant
To be fair, we didn't start having the government screen people on planes when hijackers were merely endangering one plane worth of people. About 3,000 people died and likely tens of thousands of people were injured before we started doing that.
Because 3,000 people died I am unable to just transfer my upcoming flight to someone else? Even if this crazy sentence rang through in any way, just this year I had to fly twice "the next day" so-to-speak and basically bought tickets and then flew the next day. 9/11 is as far from a reason why airline tickets are non-transferable as it gets.
I didn’t make the claim you’re arguing against, that was someone else.
But the answer to your question is: partially
The reason you can’t change it overall is simply airline policy for business reasons. But the reason you can’t change even a misspelling within the last couple of days before a flight is in fact security related.
The main reason that organizations choose commercially managed solutions is because they don't have local expertise or staff to do things themselves. I do agree that on-prem solutions are better, but Zoneminder is probably not a great option. Besides being old and clunky, it also isn't anywhere near a complete solution, and the IP cameras people often choose to connect to them are often security nightmares. There are many good and complete commercial offerings that are secure and keep video locally.
I totally get what you are saying and there are certainly some schools that lack IT staff, budget and experience but there are some schools that have big budgets and plenty of IT people sitting on their hands that could slowly build this out, document it in a way that schools could budget around YoY and set examples for other schools. Maybe even use it as a project to get students some college credits.
If there are better options than Zoneminder please do share the tutorial videos with others here so they have greater options. I am old and clunky so ZM works for me. Some may even say old and clunky can mean reliable and low maintenance. There are probably some school IT admins reading this. ZM has great documentation and tutorial videos in my opinion. It is also used by a large number of corporations.
Just my own philosophy but I am leery of expensive turn-key commercial solutions as they lead to proprietary solutions that school IT won't understand and will just lead to dead cameras and empty NVR's when law enforcement need them the most. It will be one of the first maintenance contracts that get cut from budgets.
Just because someone has an IT staff doesn't necessarily mean that staff really has the expertise to set up a bespoke surveillance system properly. Nor does it really make it a good idea to do so. Nor is it even a good use of time when packaged systems can fulfill most requirements with less integration risk.
The software running on an NVR is only one small part of a surveillance system. I'd be much more worried about the choice IP cameras themselves, which are notoriously problematic. And if you look at the cameras which are well regarded and high quality -- typically those vendors have their own NVR solutions which are also well regarded and already tested to work well with their cameras.
> I am leery of expensive turn-key commercial solutions as they lead to proprietary solutions that school IT won't understand
If IT can't adequately evaluate and choose a turn-key solution, I doubt their ability to piece together their own system.
> If there are better options than Zoneminder please do share the tutorial videos with others here so they have greater options. I am old and clunky so ZM works for me. Some may even say old and clunky can mean reliable and low maintenance.
The last time I tried Zoneminder, the problem I had was that the detection algorithms were so bad that I found them useless. The cameras I had were all outdoors and their algorithm struggled to strike a balance between detecting legitimate motion and not falsely triggering when lighting conditions changed. I tried some other projects that had better algorithms for filtering out changes in exposure and lighting (I forget which ones), but there's also some now that have AI object detection. But ultimately I've migrated away because commercial options got better, cheaper, and more feature filled.
If I picked a new system today I'd probably try something like: https://www.ui.com/us/en/camera-security I don't have any personal experience with it but the value looks incredible.
The last time I tried Zoneminder, the problem I had was that the detection algorithms were so bad that I found them useless.
Fair enough. I've had them set off by deer no matter how hard I try to avoid it. I think they know they are getting my attention.
For what it's worth in a school setting there can be monitors in multiple admin offices, the admin waiting area, school police office and other offices to group source monitoring of strange activity. Otherwise if nothing else it is useful to be able to go back an hour, a few hours or days to verify the "he said, she said" accusations often uttered in school.
That and paying to offload legal liability to a vendor.
Lots of great, free, widely adopted open source technology solutions aren't adopted by public sector because their legal staff won't accept the liability of not having a paid contract that makes guarantees. Great use of tax dollars.
If there’s no copyright, there’s no closed source. You get their code, decompile/disassemble and reuse as you see fit.
You might argue that doesn't help much if they never distribute that code (only runs on their servers). Here’s the inconvenient truth: GPL already allows that. Anyone can take a GPL codebase, do any modifications they want, run it forever, and never contribute back. You’d need AGPL to forbid that. GPL is only concerned if you further distribute the modifications.
This seems plainly obvious -- chat bots are not attorneys. Why would they be privileged as such? You don't get attorney-client privilege when you put your legal questions into Google, or to sending them to anyone or anything else other than an attorney...
The liberator is the “hello world” of 3d printed guns. It is just barely functional enough to technically exist but practically isn’t of much use.
The barrel is so short and non existent that it basically does nothing except hold the (metal) cartridge in place. A liberator isn’t much different than simply holding a cartridge in a fixture and hitting it with a hammer.
In a conventional gun, the barrel serves to allow the projectile to build velocity and stabilize the trajectory by putting a spin on it. The liberator does neither, so the projectile will be moving quite slow and will be inaccurate.
And also, they do commonly explode, even on the first shot. It’s a gamble.
“Lethal velocities” doesn’t really mean much. A slingshot can propel a bullet at lethal velocities. And that would probably be a more suitable option for criminals as it would be more reliable and have more rapid fire capability.
Now it might be a viable one-shot gamble for a criminal in a place where guns are entire forbidden. But in those places, it is typically not easy to get a real .380 cartridge, so it doesn’t really change much. And in the US, there are much easier ways for criminals to get much better guns.
Isn’t the Liberator like 10 years out of date? The last 3D printed gun I saw was a submachinegun capable of full auto. It had a metal barrel but that was described as easy to acquire or make.
Yes but all of the better designs use metal components that aren’t 3d printed. The liberator was to “prove” it could all be 3d printed. Technically true but practically not worth it
There was a panic about plastic guns back in the 80s too when the Glock came out, and Congress passed the Undetectable Firearms Act.
But it was just as misinformed as it is today -- practically speaking, only metal is suitable for the high pressure components of a gun. A common 9mm cartridge produces upwards of 35,000 psi.
reply