"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:41:59 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:05:19 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 18/04/2017 11:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 02:45:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 03:14:53 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:

Or for pursuing criminals who are running away from
the cops either. Corse a ****ing great alsatian is likely
to be a seen as a tad more threatening by the average
running crim too.

I'm pretty certain a similarly sized lion/tiger would be considered
more threatening.


;-)

That could work as long as the handler wore armour, had the beast on a
(long / strong) lead and the laws on keeping dangerous animals was
changed to allow the Police animals to actually kill crims (as I'm not
sure the recall command would work as well on a lion as it would on a
dog). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/10...rning-hug.html

Cool.

Is it just me, or do cameras mounted on someone so they stay still and
the
surroundings move seem rather odd?

Yeah, the worst of them can make you a bit sea sick.

But there isnt any feasible alternative when there is
no camera operator to keep tracking what matters.

Could have some kind of fancy gyroscopic thing or an electronic
alternative to make the camera stay still.

Trouble is that it then wouldn't be looking at
what the wearer of the camera is looking at.

That's the whole point of those action cameras, they track
what the person whose head its attached to is looking at
and that does usually produce the best result, even if it
does have the downside of making some a bit seasick.

The big professional shoulder mounted
cameras the pros use do produce a much
better result, but cost a hell of a lot more too.