Tracking Sex Offenders via GPS for Life

ecmcn writes "According to Yahoo! news, the governor of Florida just passed a bill that, along with increasing the jail time served for convicted sex offenders, requires them to be tracked for life via GPS. No technical details about the tracking, but it mentions "warning authorities when a sex offender is someplace he shouldn't be". Maybe they can get Google maps to add red zones around all of the restricted areas."

Comments

Re:Another Idea

[JonTurner]

Give 'em a t-shirt to wear? Hrmph! Only if it's on fire.

Re:And why do we let them go free?

[Gridpoet]

so, are the people who modded this flamebait ex-sex offenders?

Re:What about the little brown ones?

[runlvl0]

Oh. Okay. The fuckwit grandparent poster compares Jews to pederasts, and I'm the troll.

Good to know the level of discourse here. IHBT.

Re:Problem is the definition of sex offender

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I've already explained what the purpose of the first post was. Why do you insist on still misunderstanding me? I think that everyone else who ready my initial post understood what I was talking about. Why don't you?

Re:Problem is the definition of sex offender

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Nope, it's already written in the original and the responses. All I can add is that I didn't make up the original idea. The idea of an atom as "empty space" existed long before I posted a message on the topic.

If you do a google search on the keywords "atom empty space" you will find almost 600,000 hits.

Question for you: do you understand that the original idea is a way to present atoms to children?

Re:Problem is the definition of sex offender

[Profane MuthaFucka]

My final question: why in the world did it bother you so much? Did you lay awake at night wondering just what I meant? When I see a comment I don't understand, I just skip it. Waste only about a second on it.

OK, I'm going to make a diversion. So I won't lose you, I'll explain it. It's a story in which the presenter is trying to explain something, but someone else annoyingly can't let go of an insignificant detail. I feel a lot like the presenter in my story, which follows.

---------

There was a great computer scientist named Edsgar Dijkstra, who recently died. People giving talks would shudder when he entered the room. One time, he attended a PowerPoint presentation. Dijkstra looked at the slide which depicted a colorful graph and immediately started badgering the presenter:

Dijkstra: What do the red and blue colors in your graph stand for.
Presenter: They don't stand for anything.
D: Why did you color the graph then?
P: I wanted a colorful graph, not a black and white graph.
D: But they must mean something.
P: No they don't mean anything.
D: What is the point of coloring a graph when it doesn't mean anything.
P: I wanted it to be colorful.
D: Why did you want it to be colorful? What information are you trying to communicate with colors on your graph.
P: The colors are simply for contrast, and for aesthetics.
D: OK, if the colors are for contrast, then why did you pick red and blue? Are you familiar with the theory of colors? Contrast has nothing to do with color, but with the intensity of colors.
P: I know about color theory, but it's irrelevant. This graph is about the running speed of two different sorting algorithms.
D: But why would you pick red and blue? Did you consider any other colors? If you chose red and blue for contrast as you say, then why did you not choose black and white? Or very light red and very dark red? I think your explanation is unsatisfactory...

And so on. I made up the dialog, but the actual event was supposedly real.