sanitation@lemmy.today to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 days agoCleveland Voted to Kill Its Flock Camera Network. They Have REMAINED ON, With Police Still Using Themwww.gadgetreview.comexternal-linkmessage-square194fedilinkarrow-up11Karrow-down19
arrow-up1994arrow-down1external-linkCleveland Voted to Kill Its Flock Camera Network. They Have REMAINED ON, With Police Still Using Themwww.gadgetreview.comsanitation@lemmy.today to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 days agomessage-square194fedilink
minus-squarebridgeburner@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·2 days agoI’d be careful with that. Not sure how likely it is that the beam reflects and messes up ur eyes.
minus-squareTreczoks@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down4·2 days agoSo there is a country with more guns than inhabitants, and they are afraid of a f-ing laser?
minus-squareiLStrix@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·2 days agoI would argue strong lasers are more dangerous than guns on average.
minus-squareTreczoks@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 day agoDepends on the definition of “strong”. If you mean “a laser that melts down the Flock camera into a steaming puddle”, then I’d agree. But if you mean “a laser that kills a CCD chip”, then no.
I’d be careful with that. Not sure how likely it is that the beam reflects and messes up ur eyes.
So there is a country with more guns than inhabitants, and they are afraid of a f-ing laser?
I would argue strong lasers are more dangerous than guns on average.
Depends on the definition of “strong”.
If you mean “a laser that melts down the Flock camera into a steaming puddle”, then I’d agree. But if you mean “a laser that kills a CCD chip”, then no.