4 ms·
I don't think that false positives disqualify such approach.
by mixedbit 10y ago
I don't think that false positives disqualify such approach.
- nibnib 10y agoYou can easily combine techniques. Send rescue dogs and handlers wherever phone signals are traced.
- deadbunny 10y agoHaving worked for companies trying to detect mobile phones this would be about as useful as guessing. Triangulating a signal (if you could even get one from under 2 tons of rubble) is not an easy task in the real world, especially one that would need to be accurate to within 1m or so.
- maxxxxx 10y agoThat's probably what they are doing. These people are not dummies that need to be lectured by some hacker news guys.
- OJFord 10y agoIt would be a waste of resources to rescue an ownerless phone.
- tamana 10y agoIt is a waste of resources for rescuers to sit doing nothing because they ignore leads.
- andrepd 10y agoFalse dichotomy. You can do other things besides chasing a very high false positive-rate indicator and sitting still doing nothing.
- mseebach 10y agoWhich is why you'd correlate with lists of known missing and known not-missing people before digging in.
- OJFord 10y agoMissing people won't lose their phone in a disaster?
- nkrisc 10y agoUse your imagination. No one is suggesting rescuers dig for ownerless phones. They would be just another signal used to determine where trapped people might be.
- OJFord 10y agoIt would be a waste of resources to rescue an ownerless phone.