Using Technology To Enforce Good Behavior

Ismellpoop writes "With the new year upon us and resolutions being made to change unwanted behavior, many tools are now available to help people stay in line, such as a GPS-enabled app that locks down texting once a car gets rolling and a program that cuts off credit-card spending. Another device monitors your workout and offers real-time voice feedback. Have we entered an era in which electronics serve as mother, cop and coach because we can't manage our own desires?"

Comments

How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[h4rr4r]

How is this any different than my alarm clock?

Is it my mother because it wakes me?

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[click2005]

Why not just fit everyone with a V-chip. If they have impure/illegal/un-patriotic/ thoughts they get a shock.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[spun]

Why not just fit everyone with a V-chip. If they have impure/illegal/un-patriotic/ thoughts they get a shock.

AT least then we will all have the means to send Saddam back to hell if he ever escapes.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Anonymous Coward]

s/if/when/

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Yvan256]

Fry: Jeez, doesn't that shock collar hurt?
Leela: Actually, feels kind of good. I guess I'm starting to associate it with the pleasure of beating people up.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it my mother because it wakes me?

Only if you dream of having sex with it

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Anonymous Coward]

My mother used a cattle prod, you insensitive clod.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[trollertron3000]

Yes. Real men waken themselves by drinking a certain amount of water like the Native Americans did. Also, we keep our earnins in a coffee can!

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[fearlezz]

It is your mother if the manufacturer programmed it to go off every day at 7.00, even if you don't have school/work.

Your alarm clock goes off because YOU instructed it to. Not because someone else is enforcing their habits and/or rules on you.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this 'alarm clock' app you speak of? The iPhone doesn't appear to have such a thing.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Locke2005]

You have committed a double-plus ungood crimethink. Please report immediately to the Ministry of Love for reeducation.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Rob the Bold]

It is your mother if the manufacturer programmed it to go off every day at 7.00, even if you don't have school/work.

Your alarm clock goes off because YOU instructed it to. Not because someone else is enforcing their habits and/or rules on you.

From TFA these devices/apps/programs are all voluntary. Well, I guess buying the 7:00AM alarm clock would be too, so nevermind.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[hosecoat]

It is your mother if the manufacturer programmed it to go off every day at 7.00, even if you don't have school/work.

Your alarm clock goes off because YOU instructed it to. Not because someone else is enforcing their habits and/or rules on you.

"enforcing their rules on you", perhaps a better word than "mother" would be "annoying".
eg. This new technology is "annoying".
Alternatively, you could call it technology that prevents you from doing what you want to do

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[mcneely.mike]

My mother used a cattle prod, you insensitive clod.

Don't brag... YOU insensitive lucky guy.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[SuricouRaven]

My alarm clock:
# M H dom mo dow
35 06 * * 1-5 mainuser play /home/mainuser/kirbytheme.wav 2>/dev/null

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[laughingcoyote]

Now that would make me quite pissed off.

What, I can't say pissed off?

OWWWWWWWWWWW!

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Mindcontrolled]

Well, so is my alarm clock. It prevents me from what I want to do - e.g. sleeping till noon.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[gparent]

Same with everything else mentioned in the summary, I'd assume. Your point?

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[bjdevil66]

It's not different as long as the other technologies also come with the equivalent of a snooze bar or an off switch...

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Normal Dan]

This would be a very unwise thing to do. Putting such a chip in everyone would be very expensive. We'll need to wait for the price to go down a bit first.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is the purpose. When I am sleeping I don't know what time it is, the alarm clock is there to notify me when I should wake up. In the case of these programs, the person knows they should or shouldn't be doing something. If a person is driving down the freeway they know they shouldn't be texting on a cell phone. The only reason they would download this program is if they lack the will power to not send text messages.

It would be the same as buying an alarm clock without a snooze button because you aren't be responsible/mature enough to get out of bed when your alarm goes off.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

How is this any different than my alarm clock?

Is it my mother because it wakes me?

The difference is that if taken to an extreme we'll develop a society where everything's okay to do until you're physically prevented from doing it. (If you've ever paid attention to all the frivolous lawsuits filed in the last two decades, you can already see this happening.)

Here's a scenario: Imagine in the not too distant future it becomes a standard feature of cell phones to automatically go silent when in a theater. Pretty soon restaurants start silencing phones because people get extra noisy in there. They figure the phone's working, so it's okay to use it. Not long after that, book stores start silencing them and so on. It becomes a race to shut people up instead of making it socially unacceptable.

If you have trouble buying that scenario, fine, that's cool. I suggest instead of hitting reply to me you just think about the times you got in trouble as a kid and all the different excuses you invented to try to come out blameless. Then think about the sense of entitlement we (well, us Americans anyway) already have. Then ask yourself if you really want somebody else setting your alarm clock for you.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[amRadioHed]

My can't do that, I disable it when I want to sleep till noon.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[deapbluesea]

Or you can simply buy an iPhone which will randomly allow you to sleep till noon....

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then think about the sense of entitlement we (well, us Americans anyway) already have.

At least we haven't rioted over a 2 year increase in the youngest retirement age on the planet, or stormed a government building because our highly government subsidised tuition went up by a couple hundred a year....

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[plover]

Convenience.

I already have an app to set my phone to "silent" as I approach the building at work. Not that I need to be told that it's wrong to have a noisy phone at work, but I do forget to silence it. It's one less thing cluttering up my already cluttered brain.

I silence my cell phone in the theater, sometimes because I remember but sometimes because the annoying video clip reminds me to.

I always remember to silence my cell phone at important events, such as theatrical plays, funerals, ceremonies, etc, because they're uncommon. Before such events I mentally go through a list of "are you prepared to be here?" kinds of things.

So I'd love a "location service" that says "hey, you're within the walls of something deemed a 'theater' or a 'restaurant, 3+ stars', I'll go silent." It would help me be polite at times when it might not occur to me otherwise. But I'd be the one choosing to use it out of respect for my fellow patrons, and not having it imposed upon me by a self-important restauranteur and an obsequious cell phone company.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[natehoy]

are all voluntary.

For now. Until a few kids get killed by some asshole using his phone to send a text. Then it'll be a "think of the CHILDREN" law that no cell phone may operate at more than 5MPH.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[chrismcb]

Give it a day or two.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Nimey]

*whooosh*

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Thing 1]

And even worse, they might try monkeying with the phone even more because "I really need to let my friend know" this trivial thing that I can't be bothered to call them about. So, yeah, I can see these apps' authors being sued due to vehicular deaths. (Not necessarily rightfully sued, but sued nonetheless.)

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Thing 1]

"He had that same obsequious manner; that was the reason I had him killed." Thanks!

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I want you to say "horse fucker".

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now all we need is a *woosh* app, there's already a ba-dum *tish* website.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[thegarbz]

Is it possible for a whooosher to be whooshed? Because I think we have a double wooosh here.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[gl4ss]

Defining desires is difficult. none of these programs will help with that, they can make a noise in the morning to tell you that it's morning but they can't decide if it's a good idea to get up or not. they can't decide what is patriotic and what is not - and what is patriotic and what is not in 6 months.

or if it would be good idea to go get a fresh cup of coffee or if not, or if you should drink coffee at all.

however all these devices are actually pretty simple to engineer to life. so there's lots and lots of them, so many route trackers, so many calorie counters, so many useless apps.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[mapkinase]

Yes.
==
That's basically all that I wanted to write, and I am adding this blabber to satisfy the slashcode.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Anonymous Coward]

An alarm clock is a lot easier to disable and you are the one that sets it up. Alarm clocks do not come automatically set with a purchase of a bed.

Re:How is this any different than my alarm clock?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, here's the weird thing... the iPhone does have one. This is so obvious, that I'm assuming this is a "whoosh" moment for me, but even assuming that, I can't figure out where the humor is. :(

The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Seumas]

Have we entered an era in which electronics serve as mother, cop and coach because we can't manage our own desires?

If you're the one setting up these utilities for yourself, then you are managing your own desires.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[spun]

I refuse to let anyone tell me what to do, especially past-me. Who does that fucker think he was, making decisions for me? When he told our wife "I'll pick up groceries on the way home," did he have any idea how tired I would be after work? No, and he didn't care, because it's not him picking up the groceries, he is gone, he is only a shadow of the past, and I am the one who has to pick up the groceries. Well, fuck it. It's not like I'm hungry now. If future me gets hungry, he can get his own damn food. But knowing him, he'll blame me for not getting it for him now, the sanctimonious prick.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fun part will come when these utilities are set up by the manufacturer, at the government's behest, for the sake of "safety"...

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[cosm]

That can be a grey area though,

If I input my physiological information et al. into a health management program that plans my different foodstuffs intakes, am I managing my desires when I only eat what the software tells me? What if I was only allowed the food that the software determined, and was physically incapable (or restrained) from eating food not specified by the software? How far off do we think this future really is, 10, 15, maybe 30 yrs?

As we march towards the singularity (the one in which technology owns us, not the Terminator style one, but the point at which we are completely incapable as a cumulative species of surviving with little to know technology), we slowly hand our decision making skills over to software developers, who vicariously manage our desires with their code.

Summary is still poorly worded flame-bait though, you can't really manage 'desires' per se. You can recognize them and act on them accordingly, but setting my alarm clock (as a poster used as an example) doesn't manage my desire to get out of bed, it just adds a desire to stop that loud ass noise, with the added benefit of awaking to do so.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[locallyunscene]

Yes, this is more like "Using technology to break bad habits". With apologies to Chris Rock, ain't nothing wrong with that!

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[poetmatt]

people were able to manage their own desires previously. This is just another tool for it. Doesn't mean it works, though.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[hansraj]

Ahahahaha.. man, you killed me!

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[nospam007]

I already have it by setting my ringtone to:
"Bad boy, bad boy, whatchou gonna do if they come for you"

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Anonymous Coward]

When you put it like that procrastination makes so much more sense.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Yetihehe]

This way no-texting-while-driving app becomes self-control prosthesis. Just like post-it's are memory prostheses.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Rob the Bold]

I refuse to let anyone tell me what to do, especially past-me. Who does that fucker think he was, making decisions for me? When he told our wife "I'll pick up groceries on the way home," did he have any idea how tired I would be after work? No, and he didn't care, because it's not him picking up the groceries, he is gone, he is only a shadow of the past, and I am the one who has to pick up the groceries. Well, fuck it. It's not like I'm hungry now. If future me gets hungry, he can get his own damn food. But knowing him, he'll blame me for not getting it for him now, the sanctimonious prick.

Bastard ate my emergency donut, too.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[hansraj]

Just that?

My past-me was clogging the internet posting lame "Ahahahaha.. man; you killed me!" comments.

So actually, my past-me ate parts of everyone's donuts!

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[SuricouRaven]

We're at the point of non-survival already. Without modern technology, it would be impossible to produce enough food and many communities would be without enough water. If something happened tomorrow to wipe out just electricity and the mechanised engine, I imagine well over half the population of the world would be dead in five years. Humanity would survive, but the losses would be harsh, and numbers could never recover without the return of those technologies.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Seumas]

No, if you're utilizing an application to determine your diet and you eat accordingly, you're choosing to make use of tools likely developed by those who have spent their life specializing in something (nutrition, dietary needs, etc) that you likely have not and therefore have accepted the benefit of their expertise through the piece of software. The same way I use a piece of software to help me file my taxes every year, because I am a software engineer and not an economist or tax advisor or a CPA.

Of course, being forced into some big brother situation is evil and abhorrent. Having the choice to use something or not or to stop using it is hardly a significant concern.

You could argue that I have no assurance that such a program would be developed by anyone who has a clue what they're doing, but that's the reason I use things like Turbo Tax and not "Bob's Tax Stuff".

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[rezalas]

No his past self killed you and my past self commented about it. Unfortunately this excuse doesn't work in court.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Anonymous Coward]

Best Funny on Slashdot in a long time.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[locallyunscene]

You could have said the same about roman aqueducts and irrigation 2000 years ago.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Anonymous Coward]

I refuse to let anyone tell me what to do, especially past-me.

I am nobody's puppet, especially not my own.
Z.B.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[antdude]

"Don't tell me what I can't do!" --John Locke.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[iammani]

You cant fly!

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[ShakaUVM]

>>If you're the one setting up these utilities for yourself, then you are managing your own desires.

Eh, a lot of GPS enabled devices will bitch at you if you operate them while moving.

It's kind of annoying, especially when you're the passenger.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[antdude]

Yes, I can. :P

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a future in American politics.

m!

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[natehoy]

Yeah, having to click through a bunch of "you shouldn't do this while you're driving" bullshit is very distracting when I'm driving. :)

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[plover]

What about if tax laws become so complex that the government mandates the use of filing software to ensure proper compliance with them?

I filled out a tax form on property depreciation once, decades ago, that had in the instructions "estimated time you will need to understand this form and fill it out: 40 hours." So I may have filled out the form incorrectly, but realized I had no practical way of knowing for sure if it was right. Software would have been able to ensure it was filled out properly.

They're already creating laws so complex that filing software (or hiring an expert) is the only economically practical way to comply. I suppose my best option at this point is to demand that congress simplify the tax laws, before they force me to buy software. As if.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's a step up from mine:
"Fuck the police"

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you know that is you don't pick up those groceries future you will end up having to beating off and falling asleep promptly after on the couch.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[mapkinase]

"you are managing your own desires"

Here is your mistake, my friend. That's not me. It's the evening me who sets up the alarm clock to wake the oh so real, morning me, and I hate that evening guy.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[JackCroww]

That was a solipsistic masterpiece. Thanks for starting my day with a good laugh.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[SleazyRidr]

My only regret is that your post is too long to become my sig.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[SleazyRidr]

I think it's not so much about wanting to stop the noise (although that extra impact helps), but to help prod you in the direction you've already decided you want to take.

If you sit down with a clear head, and plenty of time to think you can work out ways you can make your life better. One of these might be getting out of bed earlier. You sit down and think of all the ramifications, and decide that getting up early is the best thing for you to do. However, at 6 in the morning, getting up early doesn't seem like such a great idea. The alarm clock serves to remind you that you have thought it all through.

Sure it could go further to a state beyond what seems comfortable, but at this point helping people better themselves (and the world at large in many cases) is a good outcome.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[SleazyRidr]

That's a whole other issue you've got there. Let's not get started on how complex the tax code is, we could go on for days.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Anonymous Coward]

and it was just as true then as it is now.

Re:The blurb misses something in the proposition.

[Macgrrl]

The Australian Tax Office (ATO) has an online app that is updated annually for filing your tax. It automatically pre-fills any information the ATO already knows regarding your health insurance, PAYE tax or charitable donations, etc... streamlining the process.

Last year I did both my and my husband's personal taxes in under an hour - fortunately ours are both pretty straightforward. Refund received within 2 weeks.

My only gripe is that the application is coded in .net and requires windows to run. I'm going to have to install Parallels or something this year, I'm no longer interested in maintaining a windows machine simply to do my tax for one night per year.

Flamebait summary

[mcgrew]

Have we entered an era in which electronics serve as mother, cop and coach because we can't manage our own desires?"

Poppycock. These technologies aren't for government, aren't for ME keeping YOU from texting; they're tools for helping you help yourself.

Here's one not covered in TFA -- your alarm clock. Don't have the discipline to go to bed early enough to get to work on time? Set this handy little gadget and it will wake you up in the morning, just like your mom used to do.

Re:Flamebait summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Shite man, I modded you up just for the use of 'poppycock'.

That is a most splendid word.

Did all that with my PalmVx

[McNihil]

back in late 90ies... with the huge GPS "dongle" mind you.

This Mountain Dew moment brought to you by me.

Credit card spending ?

[gr8_phk]

I have a device that cuts off credit card spending - scissors.

Re:Credit card spending ?

[Dunega]

For all of those who have memorized their credit card information, you can also use the scissors to gouge your eyes out. That will make it much more difficult to find the place on the screen to type that information in!

Re:Credit card spending ?

[vuke69]

Not nearly as effective as divorce.

Re:Credit card spending ?

[coolmadsi]

Would that also help against one-click buying with a site that already has your card details stored?

Flamebait!

[girlintraining]

Have we entered an era in which electronics serve as mother, cop and coach because we can't manage our own desires?

Flamebait question. Computers? Being used to automate things? STOP THE PRESSES!

Re:Flamebait!

[Yvan256]

Flamebait question. Computers? Being used to automate things? STOP THE PRESSES!

We can't! They're automated too!

Employers using it

[tverbeek]

My BMI is just a little higher than the value my company's insurance policy requires, so I am going to be required to carry a digital pedometer and record a minimum number of steps per month in order to get the same insurance at the same rate that someone who weighs 20 pounds less would get.

Re:Employers using it

[Abstrackt]

Yikes, I hope you're not serious. But in case you are, just put that pedometer in a paint mixer for a few minutes.

Re:Employers using it

[Anonymous Coward]

So now, apparently, he's overweight and prone to seizures.

Re:Employers using it

[Abstrackt]

But he walks about 50,000 steps a day!

Re:Employers using it

[Anonymous Coward]

...a digital pedometer...

What's that do? Count the kids you diddled?

Re:Employers using it

[tverbeek]

Dead serious. So to speak. It's either that or enroll in Weight Watchers.

I also have to submit to a blood test for nicotine, and get a note from my doctor saying I'm not suffering from depression. That last condition is a substitute for the old rule, which was based on alcohol consumption. So I guess it's OK now for me to be a drunk, as long as I'm not unhappy about it. And as long as I can stagger at least X steps per month.

Re:Employers using it

[mcgrew]

At least these days we know about BMI. When I was in the USAF in the early '70s, they were having a fit about obesity. During basic training if you weighed too much, they put you in the "fat boys squadron", and you doubletimed everywhere, and had a strict diet (there was actually an armed guard by the milk machine any time the fat boys were in the mess hall).

I was stationed with a career man (he'd been there for 8 years alreadY) who was a weight lifter. This guy looked like Governor Arnold; he probably didn't have a pound of fat on his whole body, but his weight was too much for his height by USAF standards, and they told him he had to lose 20 pounds or face a medical discharge!

He lost the weight by drinking nothing but beer and coffee for two days, dehydrating himself and losing 20 pounds of water weight.

Re:Employers using it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but it only has an 8-bit accumulator, so as long as he diddles exactly 256 kids, it'll look like he's clean.

Re:Employers using it

[Rob the Bold]

I also have to submit to a blood test for nicotine, and get a note from my doctor saying I'm not suffering from depression.

Are there any other medical conditions you are forbidden from having?

Re:Employers using it

[Gordonjcp]

Is that even legal? The BMI is an utterly discredited measure of health. Comparing someone's height and weight is in no way meaningful, since it assumes that any extra weight you're carrying is fat. My BMI puts me squarely into "obese" territory, despite not even being particularly fat (1.86m, 100kg, or to translate into American units 6' and 220lbs) - but I'd like to see how many "normal" BMI, low-fat, no-carbs, no-caffeine, no-gluten skinny freaks can carry a 10m scaffolding pole up 24 floor's worth of stairs ;-)

Re:Employers using it

[h4rr4r]

Quit, find a better job with a better insurance plan.

Re:Employers using it

[tverbeek]

That guy wouldn't score any better on the BMI charts that now categorize me as "obese": all they look at is height and weight. Not that I look like the former Governator, but I walk a lot and I have pretty strong legs, so I'm more fit than a simple calculation of weight/height would imply.

Re:Employers using it

[SuricouRaven]

BMI is used because it's convenient. There are better measures, but they need specialised equipment or extensive time-consuming measurements by someone with special training. All you need to determine BMI are scales and a stick with height markings.

Re:Employers using it

[tverbeek]

Gosh, why didn't I think of that?

Re:Employers using it

[TheL0ser]

I also have to submit to a blood test for nicotine, and get a note from my doctor saying I'm not suffering from depression.

Are there any other medical conditions you are forbidden from having?

He's also not allowed to be less that 6'0" or taller than 6'2", can only consume vegetables on days that are prime numbers, and is not allowed to smile if he sees puppies. The employers don't seem to make the connection between that last one and depression.

Re:Employers using it

[mcgrew]

You should have your doctor do a proper BMI test. Or just do what the lifer guy did, dehydrate yourself before getting weighed.

Re:Employers using it

[tverbeek]

I'm allowed to have all sorts of medical conditions, but I have to pay extra for health insurance if I'm not actively working on the lifestyle-based conditions. It's the carrot/stick approach to motivating employees to bring down health care costs, but they're not doing it on the honor system anymore: you have to prove it.

Re:Employers using it

[Obfuscant]

But he walks about 50,000 steps a day!

They won't be able to download the data from the pedometer because the damn micro-USB connector will be clogged with paint!

Re:Employers using it

[FutureDomain]

they told him he had to lose 20 pounds or face a medical discharge!

Too bad it was the USAF. If I looked like Governor Arnold (too bad I don't) and some insurance guy was stupid enough to evaluate me only on my BMI, then I could intimidate him or knock his lights out if I was angry enough and maybe he'd think to do some body fat measurements as well.

Re:Employers using it

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the heavier employees ended up getting more exercise and ended up being healthier than the thin ones?

Of course if that happened the health police would hush that information up right quick.

Re:Employers using it

[TaoPhoenix]

+1 Gattaca

Re:Employers using it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, apparently _some_ of us know about BMI... Those of us who do know about it know that it is the system that you were (quite correctly) deriding in your post.

Re:Employers using it

[Anonymous Coward]

And wouldn't it be ironic if the people who drank more had healthier livers? Yeah, and also pretty fucking unlikely.

Re:Employers using it

[Gordonjcp]

Right, but it doesn't tell you anything useful. You might as well base it on what size shoes they have and what colour car they turned up at work in.

Re:Employers using it

[Rob the Bold]

I'm allowed to have all sorts of medical conditions, but I have to pay extra for health insurance if I'm not actively working on the lifestyle-based conditions. It's the carrot/stick approach to motivating employees to bring down health care costs, but they're not doing it on the honor system anymore: you have to prove it.

Depression doesn't seem to fit in as a "lifestyle-based" condition. In addition, if you -- or your colleagues -- were depressed you could easily hide that from your doctor, and you just might if it cost enough. (It's not like a depressed person can't act happy for 15 minutes in front of a doctor or doesn't know the "right" answers in a screening questionnaire. Most physicians won't even screen if you aren't seeking treatment.) In that case at least, your employer's program might achieve the opposite of its intentions -- employees not getting treated for treatable conditions until they get really expensive.

Re:Employers using it

[toddestan]

There have been studies that shown that people who are overweight but physically active were no less healthy than those that aren't overweight.

Besides, from an insurance point of view, the skinny athletic types may not be cheaper to insure, if they (as a group) tend to engage in risky activities that can get them injured.

Re:Employers using it

[Macgrrl]

...a digital pedometer...

What's that do? Count the kids you diddled?

Think pedestrian rather than pederasty.

Re:Employers using it

[tverbeek]

Bingo.

Re:Employers using it

[Anonymous Coward]

It counts the feet he fucked?

Re:Employers using it

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an all together different fetish... although just as old... so to speak

Re:Employers using it

[Anonymous Coward]

Unhealthy people drive white cars.

We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[eepok]

We can and do manage our behavior, but we also like to have some sort of silver-bullet placebo. It's the only way some people can convince themselves that there will be results for some exertion of effort.

It's particularly bad, though, when we make major purchases under the pretense that we will guilt ourselves into conforming to a regiment or else risk wasting a significant investment. Bikes, gym memberships, new running shoes, etc -- these are all things that most people buy as a means to shift a desire from second level (I want to want to...) to first level (I want to...).

In the end, people just stop using those crutches (for the most part) and recede to prior, bad habits.

Re:We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[RazzleFrog]

Humans are pretty weak-willed in general. Smokers, people who are obese, people with more than 2-3 kids, people who watch television more or play computer games more than a few hours a week, etc. Of course, if we weren't weak-willed our economy would totally collapse.

Re:We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[noidentity]

This reminds me of a couple of tech crutch ideas I've had in the past:

Timed padlock for sweets: Has multi-day delay before it can be opened again. Padlock is sufficiently expensive that one wouldn't want to break it to get a few dollars' worth of chocolate inside box locked with it. This way lock doesn't have to be metal; could be plastic.

Clock for people who set their clock ahead, but then mentally adjust time and so are late anyway: Time displayed by clock is always ahead, but by a random amount which varies between say 0 and 10 minutes. This way user has to assume it shows the correct time, and thus arrive on average 5 minutes early. Cheap version: cover up ones place of minutes display.

Re:We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[russotto]

Humans are pretty weak-willed in general. Smokers, people who are obese, people with more than 2-3 kids, people who watch television more or play computer games more than a few hours a week, etc.

"Not behaving as RazzleFrog would like" != "weak willed".

Re:We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[eepok]

I would actually pay for both of those devices. Not for myself, but for my S/O who, of all things, lacks "will" and "drive" for most things in life. She's the kind of person who would buy the silver-bullet placebos I described without fail.

She took up knitting and invested in a massive amount of yarn (high quality stuff on bargain when she could find it) with the assumption that the investment will guilt her into using it. I'm pretty sure she's quit 80% of her attempted projects since her start.

I'm pretty sure she'd have been fired from her job (despite her being indispensable) for her chronic tardiness if I was not one who subscribed to the philosophy that says: "There are only two times: Early and Late. There is no 'on time'."

Re:We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[eepok]

He's just giving examples of what people frequently regret, I think... not prescribing appropriate human lifestyle choices.

(Yes, children are frequently regrets as infrequently as parents like to admit it.)

Re:We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[RazzleFrog]

I don't "like" anything. I am talking about unhealthy behavior. I don't care if you smoke and eat yourself to death.

Re:We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[noidentity]

I'll have to remember your "early or late" line. It makes me realize that when someone says they were on-time, they mean something like that they were just driving up when they were supposed to be at their desk. And knitting is boring as hell. Having done some in a handiwork class in grade school, I figured it'd be fun to try it again. No, it's the same thing over and over, the kind of thing for machines to do.

Re:We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[Obfuscant]

I would actually pay for both of those devices. Not for myself, but for my S/O who, of all things, lacks "will" and "drive" for most things in life. She's the kind of person who would buy the silver-bullet placebos I described without fail.

So she would wind up with an expensive lock, an expensive clock, plus a secret stash of oreos and ding-dings and would always be an average of 5 minutes late for everything. At least, that's what I'd wind up with if I bought those silver-bullets. I'd keep the oreos on the same shelf (and in the same boxes) that I have all those electronic parts and gizmos that I bought for projects I haven't gotten to yet.

Re:We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[plover]

I don't "like" anything. I am talking about unhealthy behavior. I don't care if you smoke and eat yourself to death.

Well I care. According to the tobacco companies, smokers are much more likely to die quickly of a heart attack long before needing expensive health care treatments to preserve their lives, so we save lots of valuable health care insurance money all thanks to smoking!

Thanks, smokers, you keep my rates down!

</snark>

Re:We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this guy's blog post makes a cool argument for why we work that way.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/10/27/procrastination/

Re:We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[eepok]

You know, I just spoke to her about those devices. She says she'd hate the clock (because it might actually put her in check), but then noted that the timed munchy safe would just convince her to binge.

>.

Re:We can and do manage our behavior, but...

[YoshiDan]

Or like, maybe, you could just not buy sweets to begin with. Can't eat them if you don't have them...

Cel phone jammers!

[snarfies]

I own two cel phone jammers. I have been trapped in too many inescapable situations (bus, train, lines, etc) with somebody having a loud and/or annoying conversation near me that even my headphones cannot drown out. I jam their cel phone signal and shut them the hell up. And I feel good about it, too. I'm like a secret superhero to everyone else within earshot.

I use a P20B jammer, which seems to jam most ATT, T-Mobile, and Verizon phones. It isn't 100% effective - Cricket and MetroPCS seem to to completely immune, not sure about Sprint/Nextel, and Alltel doesn't exist in my area. I recommend it for just about everybody.* If anyone knows of a jammer that ALSO works on those other carriers, I'd love to know about it.

* May not be legal in your jurisdiction.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[cyber-vandal]

I so wish these were legal in the UK. There are so many ignorant retards about. Train companies here were seriously considering painting windows of the so-called quiet carriages with something that blocks mobile phone signals to stop fuckwits using their phones there, despite the signs all over the place saying "please don't use your phones here".

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate assholes like you. Wile you can feel smug because you shutup the one annoying person, how do you feel about the woman further down trying to connect with her kid, or the doctor trying to manage prescriptions, or the 10 quiet business people just trying to check their email. You fucked up their connections as well. Congratulations, you made the problem even worse by inconveniencing even more people than the original offensive individual.

There's a reason why jammers are illegal, and they are everywhere in the US because they violate FCC regulations.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[mikael_j]

On one hand I can understand why it's annoying when people use their cellphones in quiet train cars (even though I never use them myself), on the other hand I can understand how people may be reasoning that the purpose of the quiet cars isn't to enforce complete silence but rather to get away from the teenager who insists on chatting on his/her cellphone non-stop and similar annoyances. That is to say, people probably figure "it's supposed to be a quiet car but this call is very important". The problem of course being that what a lot of people consider "important" to themselves just isn't.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Abstrackt]

I know what you mean, I've been trapped in too many inescapable situations with somebody who couldn't simply ask people to talk quieter instead resorting to passive-aggressive jackassery like jamming a cell phone signal.

This may come as a surprise to you but many people don't actively try to be assholes, nor are they always aware they're inconveniencing someone else with their actions. If something someone is doing bothers you try politely talking to the person to give them a chance to work with you, improve the world a little instead of deliberately being an asshole just because you feel a stranger slighted you.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[tophermeyer]

how do you feel about the woman further down trying to connect with her kid, or the doctor trying to manage prescriptions, or the 10 quiet business people just trying to check their email. You fucked up their connections as well.

Not to mention anyone else not on the train but still in range of the signal. Running one of those things on a bus or subway is like setting up a big mobile bubble of "fuck you" for everyone in the city.

As gratifying as it might be to dickishly and anonymously kill their signal, the grown up thing to do would be to simply ask the person to pipe down. If the GP is so socially backwards that he can't even manage that, I humbly suggest that he does not belong on public transportation.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[rtfa-troll]

Hint; they aren't legal in the US either. And for a good reason. Doctors have started using cellphones instead of pagers and so you shouldn't be blocking them either. If you want to do that, just go for it and make sure you don't get caught.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[h4rr4r]

1. not legal in the USA
2. if I caught you I sure as hell would be involving the authorities.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[SuricouRaven]

Risky. Some people could take such a request badly, even respond violently, and there is no way to know before asking.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[cyber-vandal]

I don't mind "Hi I'm 5 minutes away pick me up" calls, it's the 20 minute wittering that drives me up the wall.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[cyber-vandal]

I don't want to block people using cellphones completely, I spend an hour a day on the train and I'd like to read a book, study or just sit there in peace in the carriage designated for that purpose. It's not that much to ask surely. There are at least 3 other carriages on the trains I catch where people can make as much noise as they like.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[plover]

how do you feel about the woman further down trying to connect with her kid, or the doctor trying to manage prescriptions, or the 10 quiet business people just trying to check their email. You fucked up their connections as well.

Not to mention anyone else not on the train but still in range of the signal. Running one of those things on a bus or subway is like setting up a big mobile bubble of "fuck you" for everyone in the city.

No, it's like setting up a tiny mobile bubble of "fuck you" to everyone within about fifteen feet. These don't have the power to extend their range beyond the devices that are locally audible to the user, and certainly not beyond the metal walls of a bus or train. I don't own one, but I did read the poster's link and discovered that while they have a published range of 3-15 meters, their effective operational range is only about 3-5 meters, and is further attenuated by shields such as leather jackets.

Also, jamming is indistinguishable to the cell system as any other ordinary, expected RF interference. Even after a carrier is lost, the connection is maintained for up to 30 seconds or so. A train passing by would not remain within effective range long enough to drop more than a word of a conversation. It would not cause a disconnection.

As gratifying as it might be to dickishly and anonymously kill their signal, the grown up thing to do would be to simply ask the person to pipe down. If the GP is so socially backwards that he can't even manage that, I humbly suggest that he does not belong on public transportation.

Interestingly enough, the official government approach to the problem is to lie to the public!

Being trapped for 35 minutes on a commuter train or bus is annoying, but survivable, and you can always hop off at an early stop if the situation is unbearable.

But being trapped on an airplane for five hours while you cross flyover-land and having to listen to "DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO?!? I'M JOHN FUCKING SMITH OF FUCKING JOHN SMITH INCORPORATED!!" * would be enough to seriously risk causing passenger rage incidents. So instead of actually telling anyone to their face that they're too irresponsible to use a cell phone in public, they officially lie to us all and say "cell phones can interfere with navigational systems." They do offer us airphones, but at $7 per minute so as to limit demand. They know John Fucking Smith is too cheap to argue for very long at those rates.

* An actual overheard yelled-over-the-phone quote, with the name changed because I don't remember the guilty fucker's real name.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[onkelonkel]

Do these work for Telus/Rogers/Bell? If yes I am buying one tomorrow. I don't mind the 5 - minute "I just got on the bus, pick me up in front of Tim's at 5" or the "No, I'm still on the bus, I'll call you when I get to the office" conversations. What I hate are the (sorry to stereotype here) mostly women that start talking the minute they get on the bus and 55 minutes later are still talking loud enough to be heard from one end of the bus to the other. Your right to talk and my right to peace and quiet are now not in sync but a device like this would certainly help to redress the balance.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I'd be mad at you for being such a douche, but the fact that a sperglord such as yourself is a creepy anime failure that apparently hates the trash he's forced to ride shoulder-to-shoulder with so much that he can't even stand to hear them talk just makes me feel sorry for you.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Anonymous Coward]

All that will happen is the guy making the obnoxious cell phone will talk louder, or briefly tell the caller to hold a sec, flip the bird, then go back to the call.

Jammers are useful tools of shutting up obnoxious dorks, and outside of an assault charge, pretty much the only way. However, there is one caveat: They are illegal to possess.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[plover]

I know what you mean, I've been trapped in too many inescapable situations with somebody who couldn't simply ask people to talk quieter instead resorting to passive-aggressive jackassery like jamming a cell phone signal.

This may come as a surprise to you but many people don't actively try to be assholes, nor are they always aware they're inconveniencing someone else with their actions. If something someone is doing bothers you try politely talking to the person to give them a chance to work with you, improve the world a little instead of deliberately being an asshole just because you feel a stranger slighted you.

Many != all.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Moviegoer-Tells-Woman-to-Stop-Talking-On-Cell-Phone-Gets-Stabbed-in-the-Neck-87144462.html

Fortunately in this case the victim survived, and the assailant was eventually arrested and convicted of attempted murder. My point is that despite our desires to believe in the goodness of everyone in society, there are people who don't belong in society, and yet they still exist in it. Some helpfully identify themselves as anti-social through publicly identifiable clothing choices. But others may be disguised.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Anonymous Coward]

...asshole?

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[plover]

I use a different technology to solve this problem on the commute. Noise canceling headphones.

I figure "since I'm the one with the problem with how you are talking, I will make my problem go away with a flick of the switch and some tunes." It reduces all kinds of noise problems, not just cell phones: train horns and bells, loud and boorish conversations, crying children.

If the offender is right next to me and overpowers even the headphones' ability to cancel their idiocy out, I can move. And I don't infringe upon anyone else's rights, since no one has the right to make me listen to what they have to say.

I highly recommend them to public transit commuters everywhere.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Anonymous Coward]

they officially lie to us all and say "cell phones can interfere with navigational systems."

While this has been hashed out all over the place, I can at least offer anecdotal evidence that a cell phone in the cockpit will affect radio and navigational equipment. That said, in a commercial plane, you're sitting too far away from the equipment for that to be an issue at all.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[natehoy]

I've been known to pull out a notebook and take notes if someone is on a business call. One "can you repeat that, please?" usually is enough to remind them that talking about company business in a public place where everyone around them is pretty quiet is not only rude, it's terribly inadvisable. :)

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Not in my city. I predict they'd either ignore me or meekly comply, then complain about me later.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Nyder]

I own two cel phone jammers. I have been trapped in too many inescapable situations (bus, train, lines, etc) with somebody having a loud and/or annoying conversation near me that even my headphones cannot drown out. I jam their cel phone signal and shut them the hell up. And I feel good about it, too. I'm like a secret superhero to everyone else within earshot.

I use a P20B jammer, which seems to jam most ATT, T-Mobile, and Verizon phones. It isn't 100% effective - Cricket and MetroPCS seem to to completely immune, not sure about Sprint/Nextel, and Alltel doesn't exist in my area. I recommend it for just about everybody.* If anyone knows of a jammer that ALSO works on those other carriers, I'd love to know about it.

* May not be legal in your jurisdiction.

I have to say, your pretty rude.

I own a mp3 player. I use it to drown out conversations, peeps on cell phones, teenagers who think that the whole bus cares about the convo they are having with the kid sitting next to them, so on. I don't step on anyone's rights listening to my mp3 player, I don't keep people from making or receiving calls.

While I understand the usefulness of a cell phone jammer, I can't see using it because you find peeps on cell phone's annoying. Grow a backbone, learn to ignore, or get a mp3 player.

Ya, i'll get off your lawn, you probably about to let an emp loose anyways.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Peeteriz]

Well, if the cell-phone-talker loud enough to bother you then you probably can hear if he's talking about a medical emergency or cousin's shoe shopping habits before you turn on the jammer.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Corbets]

Risky. Some people could take such a request badly, even respond violently, and there is no way to know before asking.

Some people are known to response to "hello" badly, too. That doesn't make the GPs statement any less true.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[rtfa-troll]

You are of course right. I had thought of leaving it on much of the time to stop them talking, but turning on at exactly the moment that they are about to get the address they want sounds much better in any case :-)

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Tom]

how do you feel about the woman further down trying to connect with her kid, or the doctor trying to manage prescriptions,

Both of them can do that quietly, and a doctor shouldn't be talking about any patient business in a public place. It may even violate his oath.

or the 10 quiet business people just trying to check their email.

Yes. That is what has kept me from getting a jammer so far. On the other hand, jamming for a second or so would drop the call while it would be barely noticeable for e-mail and web use.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Tom]

the grown up thing to do would be to simply ask the person to pipe down.

The grown up thing is not to be an asshole in the first place. By not acting grown up yourself, you have voided your right to be approached in the same manner by me. Especially when you're not the only one.

You could just as well say "becoming all angry about spam is so childish. The grown up thing to do would be to simply out-put and delete it" - and we all know how well that works. No, assholes need to learn that they are assholes, or they will not change their behaviour.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Tom]

If everyone on the quiet car thinks that he can make one important call, then the car isn't quiet anymore.

Society works if people don't think they are so special that they deserve an exception.

If you want to know how cell phones can be used responsibly, travel to Japan. I was in Tokio for a week, and during that entire time I heard two cell phone rings, both belonging to foreigners. Everyone keeps their phone on vibrate, and for some reason they understand that you don't have to yell into the phone - you can be on a train full of commuters, every third or so talking on the phone and yet you barely notice because they almost whisper. Try it, you'll be surprised how sensitive cell phone microphones are and how good they can filter out background noise.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[mikael_j]

If everyone on the quiet car thinks that he can make one important call, then the car isn't quiet anymore.

While true in the most extreme sense this makes me think of those who feel that you should be ticketed if you cross a street when the light is red, even if it's 04:00 and not a single car can be seen.

For me the main problem with quiet train cars is the subset of passengers who are, for lack of a better term, "silence fascists". They are the ones that look at you with derision if you clear your throat once, typing on a quiet laptop keyboard will get you complaints to the train staff. I've tried riding in the quiet cars on occasion but after getting dirty looks from several other passengers every time I so much as turned a page in the book I was reading I just gave up. Well, I hope you get what I'm saying.

I'd love to ride in the quiet cars to get away from the screaming infants, barking dogs, teenagers who won't stop talking loudly on their cellphones, drunk students on their way home or to a party and all the other actual loud annoyances but I don't want to have to be afraid to clear my throat or answer an emergency phone call.

Society works if people don't think they are so special that they deserve an exception.

There are always legitimate exceptions. But as I stated, the problem is that most people think that their trivial issues regarding where to have dinner are important enough for an exception while someone else getting a phone call informing them that their mother was just killed in a car accident is clearly pointless dribble...

Try it, you'll be surprised how sensitive cell phone microphones are and how good they can filter out background noise.

I know they're supposed to be sensitive but on my current phone there's something wrong with the mic, since a few months back I've been forced to raise my voice to make myself heard. I should probably get a new phone (it's too old to be covered by warranty) but it works well enough.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[mapkinase]

How American of you, my dear delinquent compatriot.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[cerberusss]

Noise canceling headphones.[...] reduces all kinds of noise problems, not just cell phones

Holy shiiiite, that thing costs almost 400 bucks!

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Gofyerself]

somebody having a loud and/or annoying conversation near me that even my headphones cannot drown out

Either you can't read, you missed or completely ignored the above. He uses a jammer when he can hear others' conversations above his headphones. I cant fucking stand people who believe people who talk so loud on cell phones that they feel everyone in a 200' radius should hear how important they are. On the early morning train I used to take, constructions workers would rip your throat out if you fucked with their morning nap.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[rtfa-troll]

I checked online and based on Great Western's web site, it seems that the correct thing to do is to start a vigilante gang. Give people a chance ("please could you turn off your phone") then if they don't react beat them senseless. There's no other useful advice given at all. Hmm.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[SuricouRaven]

Which is why you don't say 'hello' to people you don't already know.

Re:Cel phone jammers!

[Geminii]

if I caught you I sure as hell would be involving the authorities

By calling them on your... oh, wait. :)

What about the rights of passengers?

[mrnick]

I understand that driving is a privilege and therefore you give up certain rights when driving. In MA it's illegal to text and drive, don't know how they would actually enforce such a law. I cannot imagine a scenario where it would be illegal for a passenger in a vehicle to do anything with their phone they wanted to. It doesn't sound like this technology is going to differentiate between a driver and a passenger just if the vehicle is moving or not, sounds pretty lame to me!

I don't think technology can fix this it will only frustrate consumers forcing them to go to extra measures to make their devices behave as they want (jailbreaking, etc).

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[tophermeyer]

As a resident of MA, I will say that though I completely support the concept of banning texting while driving, the current law is useless. Even local cops urged the State government to slow down and think, because now they are obligated to enforce an unenforceable law.

"Texting" is illegal. But other phone functions like talking, dialing, or using GPS Nav applications are still legally ok. This makes it functionally impossible to enforce.

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[rtfa-troll]

Don't know how they would actually enforce such a law

If you have a serious accident they check your cellphone records. If you just sent a text message before the accident you are totally screwed. Simple really.

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[Rob the Bold]

I understand that driving is a privilege and therefore you give up certain rights when driving. In MA it's illegal to text and drive, don't know how they would actually enforce such a law. I cannot imagine a scenario where it would be illegal for a passenger in a vehicle to do anything with their phone they wanted to. It doesn't sound like this technology is going to differentiate between a driver and a passenger just if the vehicle is moving or not, sounds pretty lame to me!

I don't think technology can fix this it will only frustrate consumers forcing them to go to extra measures to make their devices behave as they want (jailbreaking, etc).

Did you even RTF. . . oh forget it. It's an app for your phone! If you passenger doesn't want it, he wouldn't install the app!

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[mr1911]

I cannot imagine a scenario where it would be illegal for a passenger in a vehicle to do anything with their phone they wanted to.

Really? You need to exercise your imagination more. Here is something that is not really much of a stretch. Can you imagine a scenario where it would be illegal for a passenger in a car to drink whatever he wanted to? It is only illegal to drive under the influence, but open container laws apply to passengers too.

Your elected government overlords have no duty to use logic, either sound or flawed, when making laws. There is benefit for them in making things illegal.

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[Miamicanes]

Sorry, Officer, but I was *not* texting. I'm blogging with the Wordpress app on my Android phone, and live-tweeting status updates to my followers. Twitter couldn't geolocate me because my Epic4G's GPS was borked by Samsung & Sprint. I accidentally swerved across the middle lane and almost hit the old lady on a scooter because I had to disable 4G so Sprint's firewall won't block the GPS ephemera download, dial *#1472365# to get the phone in debug mode, forcibly flush the cache, launch the diagnostics, wait for it to get a fix, then exit back, re-enable 4G, and finally launch the twitter client. YOU try doing that with one hand...

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[Khashishi]

There are already passenger sensors in most new cars which trigger a check that the passenger seatbelt is connected. It should be simple to connect this decision to the function that prevents texting.

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[Obfuscant]

"Texting" is illegal. But other phone functions like talking, dialing, or using GPS Nav applications are still legally ok. This makes it functionally impossible to enforce.

In Oregon it is illegal to use a cell phone while driving, with limited exceptions. The law actually refers to mobile two-way communications devices and thus includes two-way radios, but contains exemptions for amateur radio, CB, and fire/police. It was quite a fight to get a ham exemption into the law, and other federally licensed radio users (like CAP) are screwed.

The law also exempts farmers who are conducting farm business. So, it's ok to be on the phone calling your feed dealer while driving I5 through Portland at rush hour, but not calling your wife to let her know you're stuck in traffic because a moron had an accident while calling his feed dealer...

Oregon made it easy. Cop sees you driving with a phone in your hand (hands-free phoning is legal) , he can pull you over. (The law also makes it a primary offense which means you can be pulled over for doing it, not just ticketed as a result of a stop for something else.)

Damn feel-good fuzzy-warm-feeling think-of-the-children legislators. At least I'm both ham and CAP, so if I'm using my CAP radio I'll just pull out my ham license and get a pass.

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[plover]

It may not be 100% enforceable, but it can be applied in appropriate situations.

Let's say you are involved in an accident, and phone records show you sent a text message 3 seconds prior to the collision, or your phone found on the scene is still sitting in the "SMS Compose Message" screen. It's an extra charge the prosecutor can throw at you, add a few hundred more dollars to your fine, or a few months to your sentence.

If a cop sees you messing on the phone before he pulls you over for erratic driving, same thing. The prosecutor can subpoena the cell records.

And a cop can certainly ask: "were you texting? Can I see your phone?" Answering yes is confessing to the crime, and showing him the phone in the SMS app is handing him the evidence he needs. (In a traffic stop situation most people are unaware of the risk of cooperating.)

As a kid in school being taught how to drive, you can therefore be taught that texting while driving will bring extra pain. Statistically it could save a few lives, and I can see why the legislature would call that a win.

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I understand that driving is a privilege

How do you figure? It can't be denied arbitrarily and is necessary in most parts of the US as a result of most cities being planned around cars. Perhaps the phrase you want is 'negotiated tort'. It's not quite a right, but we are required to allow anyone who demonstrates some small facility with a car and hasn't done anything really stupid (like not pay fines) to drive on public streets.

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[plover]

You're talking about open container laws, which really should be thrown out. Either the driver is drunk or he is not. Whether or not the open bottle is in the cab does not have any impact on his current state. Open container is a horrible, insane "pre-crime" law (guess who just watched Minority Report on cable this weekend?)

If you're on a jury and agree with this sentiment, be sure to vote to nullify any charges on open container. You can still vote guilty on the drunk driving charges themselves, but open bottle laws are just stupid. All they do is lead to excessive littering.

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[tjhart85]

Can you imagine a scenario where it would be illegal for a passenger in a car to drink whatever he wanted to? It is only illegal to drive under the influence, but open container laws apply to passengers too.

I can imaging it and it doesn't seem too horrible to me. Really no worse than driving someone home that's drunk. What, is being a DD going to be illegal as well since you can't drive with drunk passengers because you imagine scenarios where all sorts of crazy things happen?

I'd like to imagine that those open container laws are holdovers from before an officer could shove something in your mouth and prove you're drunk.
There was a time when if you smelled drunk, you were drunk & officers didn't want to deal with excuses of "it was in the car, but I wasn't drinking it, I swear!" Now, they can tell if you're drunk or not & in an objective way too.

Those open container laws are stupid because they no longer serve a point.

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[mr1911]

Open container laws still fully serve the point they were intended to serve. Open container laws were put on the books to make the circumstance a crime, ignoring the presence or absence of the original crime itself. The presence of an open container does nothing to make a driver drunk. Drinking passengers do nothing to make the drive drunk. Having a bunch of drinking passengers (and open containers) does nothing more to impair the driver than if the passengers had immediately quit drinking before getting in the car.

Open containers are no holdover. They were the beginning. Our government will continue to seek making circumstances illegal since circumstances are often more observable than the crime itself. It doesn't matter that "possession of burglary tools" makes you a criminal by walking home from Home Depot. It doesn't matter if "possession of drug paraphernalia" makes you a criminal by walking home with a new creme brulee torch and measuring spoon. You can trust government to only go after the bad guys, right?

The government doesn't take your rights away. You give them away by rationalizing you are somehow safer without them.

Re:What about the rights of passengers?

[tjhart85]

I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're most likely 100% correct.

If they can't find a legitimate crime (and even if they can), they'll always have you for something that is completely inconsequential to the issue instead.

Similar to an officer being able to give you a DUI while sleeping in a car that's turned OFF.
I've read that the only way people have managed to get out of the DUI is if they didn't have the keys in the vehicle with them.

If we really wanted to use technology...

[smooth wombat]

to enforce good behavior, we'd have more of what Rob Halford talks about in 'Blood Red Skies':

Cybernetic heartbeat
Digital precise
Pneumatic fingers nearly had me in their vice

Automatic sniper
With computer sights
Scans the bleak horizon for it's victim of the night

**BING**

[Anonymous Coward]

You have just earned "Drink x Cola Everyday this Week! You earn 500 achievement points!!"

There was a talk by a guy who used to work at Disney as an imagineer who spoke about this type of conditioning and xbox achievement point system and real life. Can't remember what you could search to get it though

Re:**BING**

[Grygus]

His name was Jesse Schell. Here is the talk.

Managing Our Own Desires

[D Ninja]

In one sense, I think the question "Have we entered an era in which electronics serve as mother, cop and coach because we can't manage our own desires?" is flamebait, but, on the other hand, it does pose an interesting question.

First of all, using technology to help humanity - whether it is something major, like producing more/better food, or something minor like making sure we can wake up at the correct time in the morning - is what it is. It's the growth of technology. So, in that respect, nobody is doing anything different than any other person who has had technology...it's just different technology.

However, I find it interesting that the summary posts a question about managing desires. While I know everybody likes to think they are more special than anybody else, and that THEY have no problem managing their desires and wants and needs, all you have to do is pick out any person out of a crowd and there were be SOMETHING that they struggle with. Eating too much. Spending too much. Pornography. Too much time in front of the TV. Overexercising (yes, I know someone who does that). Smoking. Drinking. Whatever. Everybody has something that brings them a great deal of pleasure - so much that they go overboard with it.

So, the question is, is it a bad thing to use this technology that we have at our disposal to get in control of some of our foibles? I would say no. For example, I have a friend who looked at a great deal of pornography. While he enjoyed it, it was greatly affecting his marriage because his wife couldn't live up to the standards he was setting in his mind. In addition, he also neglected his marriage due to his addiction. So, my friend began to use an application on his computer which monitored his web browsing habits. It blocked him where it could, and would email out a weekly email to his wife, myself, and his mother (!!!) regarding websites he visited. When he would screw up, we would be able to call him out on it.

Now, you could say, "Weakling. He should have managed his own impulses." And, I know he wanted to. He knew he was destroying his marriage and didn't want to do that, but, the ease of pornography access was too great for him to resist. He had to control it. Using that application helped a great deal and, after some counseling, he and his wife are happily married. (And, yes, I still receive weekly emails.)

In any case, I think making a statement like, "Have we entered an era in which electronics serve as mother, cop and coach because we can't manage our own desires?" is not only flamebait, it's also seriously judgmental and unrealistic. I do think none of these things should be FORCED on anybody...but there is absolutely no shame in using technology to help control or manage a part of your life that you need help with.

Re:Managing Our Own Desires

[JustinOpinion]

Good points.

Now, you could say, "Weakling. He should have managed his own impulses." And, I know he wanted to.

But, of course, deciding to activate the "weekly emailer" program, and deciding to NOT deactivate it, are precisely aspects of managing his own impulses. Good for him.

The point is that a person has multiple conflicting internal motivators. The balance of these motivators was tuned by evolution for a time period quite different from our current one (scarce resources, limited data, relatively short lifespan, etc.), which is why it produces perverse results in a modern world (e.g. over-eating). So it makes perfect sense to adjust the balance by giving more power/tools to the "good" motivators. So you create systems that emphasize the long-term goods (exercise, don't over-indulge in porn, etc.) over the short-term goods (getting what you want right now). Using technology to modify your own behavior is, in my opinion, not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of self-awareness: you have the intelligence and maturity to realize what forces are struggling to dictate your behavior, and you actively take steps to craft your environment in order to achieve your long-term goals. In an abstract sense, there's not much different between activating some self-limiting technology, and moving to someplace quiet so that you can concentrate. It's a matter of selecting your environment to help, rather than hinder, your goals. (Is someone who can't concentrate in a noisy place weak-willed? Or just human?)

In that sense, I'm all for technology providing people with options for adjusting their own behavior. I expect this to grow and I look forward to it. For instance, there is a body of research showing that people are better able to control their own bodies once you give them feedback (e.g. actively controlling your heartrate once you have a readout showing it). I try to eat healthily, but I'm always wondering if I'm getting too much, or not enough, of a given thing. If I had something that could monitor my diet and tell me "you could do with more potassium -- grab a banana instead of an apple for your snack today" that would be very useful. And having a gadget that counted "that's your third cookie today" would probably help me skip those times when I'm eating junk food for no good reason (e.g. I'm bored).

I absolutely agree that these technologies would be insidious if they were forced on anyone. It would undermine our self-determination. But if they simply exist, and people voluntarily decide to use them, to control their own lives. Well, that's actually a way to help people with their self-determination.

Re:Managing Our Own Desires

[Anonymous Coward]

It is good that you use a generic username. Otherwise you, and thus your friend, might be identifiable. It is not a good thing to write a friend's personal, private matter on *slashdot* unless he grants you permission to do so. In which case, thanks for a great story - marriage broken by porn, but saved by a cron job!

Re:Managing Our Own Desires

[Gofyerself]

Every decision ever made produces unintended consequences, technology is no different.

my gps came with this

[v1]

new garmin nuvi. if you try to punch in directions for it to start navigating to, while the car's in motion, it won't let you. You have to go into the settings and disable the safety.

"That's right officer, I was distracted trying to disable my GPS's nav safety feature when I ran into that tree." Wonder how that would turn out for Garmin?

Re:my gps came with this

[sweatyboatman]

in your hypothetical you're still the idiot who drove into a tree, right?

Re:my gps came with this

[Abstrackt]

"That's right officer, I was distracted trying to disable my GPS's nav safety feature when I ran into that tree." Wonder how that would turn out for Garmin?

I bet you'd get laughed out of the courtroom, seeing as it's easier to disable the safety feature before you start driving.

Re:my gps came with this

[Anonymous Coward]

new garmin nuvi. if you try to punch in directions for it to start navigating to, while the car's in motion, it won't let you. You have to go into the settings and disable the safety.

"That's right officer, I was distracted trying to disable my GPS's nav safety feature when I ran into that tree." Wonder how that would turn out for Garmin?

It would turn out just fine for Garmin. Less so for you. You fail it.

Re:my gps came with this

[coolmadsi]

"That's right officer, I was distracted trying to disable my GPS's nav safety feature when I ran into that tree." Wonder how that would turn out for Garmin?

I bet you'd get laughed out of the courtroom, seeing as it's easier to disable the safety feature before you start driving.

Or set the destination before starting driving

Please ...

[PPH]

... Don't taze me, bro!

Electric shock

[SnarfQuest]

how about an ap that delivers an electric shock whenever someone uses "like" or "you know" at random places in their speech.

It's like, you know, really irritating when, like, you know, someone constantly stuffs them in, like, you know, multiple times in, like you know, every sentence.

Should really come out as the more satisfying

It's OUCH OUCH really irritating when OUCH OUCH someone constantly stuffs them in OUCH OUCH multiple times in OUCH OUCH every sentence.

Re:Electric shock

[Abstrackt]

how about an ap that delivers an electric shock whenever someone uses "like" or "you know" at random places in their speech.

You know, I really like your idea!

Euthyphro for the new millenium?

[ElectricTurtle]

Is it bad because we can't do it or can we not do it because it's bad?

When I started thinking about this I couldn't help but draw connections to the Star Trek episode Return of the Archons where a computerized facsimile of a philosopher (Landru) runs the whole planet, deciding what people should and shouldn't do, making them practically zombies, except for pre-programmed times where the restrictions are lifted (festivals). However, after generations of complete control rigidly enforced at all times by an external agent (as opposed to the more pliant give and take of the individual in society), the people under Landru's control go absolutely batshit nuts during festivals, raping and murdering etc.

I'm forced to wonder if something similar would happen where self-control/discipline is externalized to automation. Doesn't that make the character of those 'users' inherently weaker/less developed? What would happen should the systems be 'down', would the users be able to stop themselves from spending/overeating/whatever after having relied on a machine to be their own conscience for so long (especially having been weak enough in the area to have needed it in the first place)? What prevents scope/mission creep from turning the whole race into behavior-on-rails zombies?

Re:Euthyphro for the new millenium?

[neiras]

What prevents scope/mission creep from turning the whole race into behavior-on-rails zombies?

Hello there, fellow former Ruby developer!

feminism?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and a program that cuts off credit-card spending.

Wow, now husbands really are redundant in every sense!

Sorry, you must wait awhile to use this resource

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey guys, forget my earlier post was lame. This is the witty one that might get plussed, OK? Hello?

Slap drones!

[tylersoze]

Once we get super intelligent AI minds all we'll need are slap drones and social norms enforced by convention in our post scarity, anarchic Culture.

The cookie, will it crumble?

[Professr3]

Does ending a news post with a provocative yet insubstantial question guarantee its success? Do all recent Slashdot stories seem to end this way? Find out, right after the break.

Re:The cookie, will it crumble?

[MerelyASetback]

Yes.

Re:The cookie, will it crumble?

[zildgulf]

Video at 11.

Re:The cookie, will it crumble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does ending a news post with a provocative yet insubstantial question guarantee its success? Do all recent Slashdot stories seem to end this way? Find out, right after the break.

Maybe, but don't tell me that you don't love it.

Nannystate?

[kimvette]

such as a GPS-enabled app that locks down texting once a car gets rolling

Thanks, but I would like to be able to text while riding as a passenger, and even if I am the driver I still want to see SMS traffic updates. I chose not to text of my own free will prior to the nannystate laws which solve nothing, and still won't text while driving. Go pull someone over for failure to yield, running a stop light, failure to come to a stop at a stop sign, or failure to maintain control of their vehicle and leave my phone the fuck alone.

Thanks.

and a program that cuts off credit-card spending.

I will decide when I have spent enough, thankyouverymuch. I spend a lot but I also pay my bills on time. I don't need you to tell me I can't buy one more blu-ray disc this month, or I can't order more camera gear, etc,. - if AmEx agrees I can handle the financial transactions I choose to engage in, who the fuck are you to decide otherwise?

Personal responsibility, folks. That's all I ask for.

Re:Nannystate?

[turbotroll]

Personal responsibility, folks. That's all I ask for.

People, in their ignorance of history, fail to understand that tyrannies and autocracies usually evolve from seemingly benign nanny states, where responsibilities and freedoms of individuals gradually shift to their leaders.

Great writers of science fictions tried to warn us about dangers of scenarios such as those mentioned in TFA. The warnings were mostly in vain, because the world is already slowly but steadily sliding into a state of technology-assisted fascism.

Re:Nannystate?

[gurps_npc]

I am sure that the credit card thin is something you sign up.

But I don't want some MORON looking at SMS traffic updates on their iphone while I am driving next to them. Endangering your own credit rating is your own business. Endangering my life is another thing entirely.

The fact that you personally may be smart enough not to text while I am next to you does not mean I have to sit back and let every teenage moron that has never had to slam on their brakes once in their entire life do the same.

But frankly, any one that thinks the government doesn't have the right to prevent other people from endangering my life by preventing people from doing something that you clearly realize is very dangerous, does not seem to be smart enough to to trust not to text.

Re:Nannystate?

[TheRealGrogan]

We're evolving into a society of retards. I'm not one of them, but it's impossible to not be affected by others.

Weak minded fools will voluntarily employ these nannying technologies now, but when they catch on they will be standard equipment.

Like the annoying seat belt chime in that car you just spent $30,000 on.

Look at the ridiculous drinking and driving laws because people can't take responsibility for their behaviour. Imagine... 0.05 BAC causing impairment enough to warrant criminal charges in some places or administrative punishment without due process in others (impounding of car and roadside license suspension for a week even though it's not an offense until 0.08 or more).

Only in our kindergarten society where the righteous love to cast blame and see other people get in trouble and get taken down.

Re:Nannystate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing these things are all completely voluntary, then.

You install the GPS-enabled app that stops you from texting on *your* phone while you're driving. It's not a jammer that prevents anybody in a 10-foot bubble from texting. That would be illegal, and probably more dangerous than texting.

AmEx already runs a program that cuts off your credit-card spending, it's called your credit limit. They're not interested in limiting it further than that, and in fact, they're pretty happy to let you run your balance all the way up to the limit and let you make minimum payments for the next 20 years.

If you don't need them, that's great, but where is anybody "forcing" you to use them if you don't want to? You can continue exhibiting your legendary self-control, and lesser mortals can use technology if they want.

In related news, I heard there's now a technological system that warns you when kids stand on your lawn. Maybe you'd be interested in something like that? Strictly voluntary, of course, you could still do it the old-fashioned way - by peeking through the blinds during the commercials in your Matlock reruns.

Re:Nannystate?

[Americano]

Look at the ridiculous drinking and driving laws because people can't take responsibility for their behaviour.

At blood alcohol levels greater than .03, there is a measurable impairment of concentration. As your BAC level rises from there, impairment begins to gradually affect reasoning, depth perception, peripheral vision, and glare recovery (the speed with which your eyes react to flashes of bright light). Beyond .10 (well above the legal limit), reflexes, gross motor control, and reaction time are all significantly increased, but those effects are still felt to smaller degrees with lower BAC levels.

At .05 BAC, you are demonstrably, measurably impaired. I don't care how steady you say you are, I don't care how well you "hold your liquor," you are impaired. Maybe it's a quarter of a second slower reflex. Maybe it's slightly impaired depth perception that makes you say, "I can totally make it through this intersection before that yellow turns red." I don't care what it is, you are impaired, and therefore, the law is absolutely reasonable in saying that you shouldn't be driving in such a condition.

If you truly cared about "taking personal responsibility," you wouldn't drive in an impaired state. You would arrange for a designated driver, or a hotel room within walking distance if you wanted to drink without worries, or you would limit your intake of alcohol or call a taxi when you realized you hadn't. Personal responsibility involves realizing that when you drink, your judgement is one of the first things that is impaired, and that's exactly what you're relying on to decide whether or not you're "okay to drive".

So in summary: fuck you. I hope the nanny state mandates interlock devices in every vehicle to prevent you from deciding that you feel just fine and are totally personally responsible, as if that means you are somehow magically exempt from running someone over due to your impairment. Because make no mistake, if your BAC is registering .05, then you are, measurably impaired, even if your impaired judgement lets you believe you're not.

Re:Nannystate?

[TheRealGrogan]

So in summary: fuck you. I hope the nanny state mandates interlock devices in every vehicle to prevent you from deciding that you feel just fine and are totally personally responsible, as if that means you are somehow magically exempt from running someone over due to your impairment. Because make no mistake, if your BAC is registering .05, then you are, measurably impaired, even if your impaired judgement lets you believe you're not.

No, no. Actually, it's fuck YOU. I eat people like you, especially righteous Americans.

I don't even drink, asshole.

Re:Nannystate?

[Americano]

Then I guess you don't have to ever worry about the "ridiculous drinking and driving laws" that you were on such a tear about, do you?

Re:Nannystate?

[CelticWhisper]

You don't have to be personally affected by something to object to it on principle.

Re:Nannystate?

[Americano]

And please explain how the laws are ridiculous when there are studies that demonstrate the impairment of even .03 BAC?

You don't have to be personally affected, but you don't get to hand-wave away the actual measurements that show that there's impairment at .03 (lower than the GGP poster's "ridiculous .05 BAC" comment, incidentally) just because those facts happen to contradict your opinion.

Re:Nannystate?

[dave1791]

Ah, but I am personally affected by this. If someone climbs into a car after drinking too much and causes an accident that involves me or a family member, it does affect me. It is what economists call a negative externality. Essentially, someone else is paying a price for your behavior. Along with freedom comes the responsibility not to be a dick to others.

Or to put it another way:
“The nanny state does not want me to toss my candy wrapper and empty water bottle out the window. Holding on to them until I find a garbage can restricts my freedom and I object to this on principle.” But wait, we all want that guy to find a garbage can and not make us look at his trash.

This is different from the state forcing me to wear a seat belt in a car or a helmet while on a motorcycle. In both cases, I’m only victimizing myself by being a dumbass.

Re:Nannystate?

[Americano]

This is different from the state forcing me to wear a seatbelt in a car or a helmet while on a motorcycle. In both cases, I'm only victimizing myself by being a dumbass.

Actually, I'd dispute that, unless you want to do away completely with emergency services, road crews, and public support for any health care for anybody.

If you don't wear a helmet and wipe out on your bike, you are much more likely to suffer a severe (crippling) brain injury that will leave you requiring significant medical/nursing care for the rest of whatever life remains in you.

If you're okay with saying "police and ambulance and fire don't need to respond when I wipe out on my bike and smash my head on the pavement," *then* you can say that your choice to not wear a helmet is only your own decision and affects nobody but you. As soon as there's an expectation that society will respond to - and pay for the response to - your injuries, then society gets a say in what sort of safety measures you need to take while riding your bike.

If you want the right to be a dumbass (and in point of fact, I believe everybody should - and that belief comes with all the objections to public-funding of numerous 'safety net' programs that it implies), you have to accept the consequences of being a dumbass as well.

Re:Nannystate?

[TheRealGrogan]

I am sorry for getting angry, for starters.

Now let's look at this realistically. The risks of slight impairment by alcohol are exaggerated. Get up dark and early in the morning, rub the sleep from your eyes and commute to work. That's more impairment than someone who has a few beers on a Saturday night. Got a sinus cold? Yes, that's right, impaired. Got something on your mind? The weight of the world on your shoulders? Let's just see what percentage of a second (200%?) it takes for some people to react.

We can't do much about these things though, can we? We just have to accept that drivers aren't always at their best. For the severe cases, there are negligence type charges that can be used.

The people who are 0.05 to 0.08 aren't really the problem, it's the remorseless drunks who don't care about the risks or the penalties.

So because of a relative few, they think that harassing and criminalizing all the rest is going to stop these people. Lobbyist groups like "Mothers against Drunk Driving" are out of control and it won't stop until there is complete prohibition, leaving them to take their antidepressants and tranquilizers in peace, with nobody else to blame.

I also have a problem with the categorization of "alcohol related" accidents. If any of the drivers involved have alcohol in their system, it's blamed on that whether it was really the cause or not.

Statisticians can also show that traffic fatalities are down and correlate it with the new policies if that's what they were commissioned to do.

A good friend of mine was minding his own business, stopped at a red light when he was hit from behind (hard, causing thousands of dollars of damage). The driver that hit him was a teenage girl, who only had a learner's permit which did not allow her to drive at night, or without another licensed driver in the car. My friend blew 0.09 and was charged with impaired, and the accident was automatically his fault and the teenage brat drove away with no charges. "There, there, never mind that nasty drunk that caused the accident" (not an actual quote, I'm just ridiculing the police)

That is ridiculous situation, but even so it's not him being charged with impaired that I object to (he was over the limit), it's the idiotic mentality that he was at fault and it was a "drinking and driving" related accident.

I have more of a problem with the arbitrary road side punishment for a 0.05 BAC (at least in the province of Ontario Canada where I live) than the actual drinking and driving "laws" (0.08 BAC). At least at 0.08 there's a reasonable amount of leeway for someone to have a few drinks.

I don't have to drink and smoke to protest the ostracization of those who do. I'm sure you have heard the old saying "First they came for ____ but I wasn't a ____. Then they came for the..." etc.

I also don't have to have a cell phone gadget (I don't!) to scoff at the nannying GPS software being discussed here, or the general state of society that breeds that sort of thing.

Re:Nannystate?

[Americano]

We can't do much about these things though, can we? We just have to accept that drivers aren't always at their best. For the severe cases, there are negligence type charges that can be used.

Difference is - you can't do a lot to control whether or not you've had a bad day or restless sleep the night before, or have a cold. You *can* control whether or not you're piling additional impairment on top of that, and then getting behind the wheel by choosing not to drive if you've been drinking.

Just because we can't eliminate every risk that causes roughly the same level of impairment doesn't mean that we cannot punish people for *choosing* to impair themselves more than their base level of performance, and then *choosing* to operate their vehicle.

If you'd care to argue that there is some *other* level of blood alcohol that does not cause a measurable decrease in faculties that are necessary for driving, then I'd be happy to review the data you provide to support that assertion. Arguing that we should be ignoring it when people drive with measurable *voluntary & avoidable* impairment is just foolish.

Take it a step farther - are you going to start saying it's okay for airline pilots to have a few drinks and then get in the cockpit an hour later? Are you okay with your surgeon showing up for your angioplasty smelling like the martini he just finished? I mean, if .05-.08 isn't "really" impaired, we should have no problems with anybody showing up for any sort of task with a couple drinks in them... right? How about people who wear glasses - is it okay if they don't wear any corrective lenses while they drive? A little astigmatism or far-sightedness probably doesn't impair their ability any more than a couple drinks would!

This discussion was about "personal responsibility" - and the *responsible* thing to do is to not drive when you have impaired yourself - not to rationalize away why it's *probably* safe to drive, because after all, you "slept well last night, and half the people on the road are probably just as impaired as you are because of sleep deprivation and cold medicine." That's making excuses, not taking responsibility.

Re:Nannystate?

[TheRealGrogan]

There are always going to be absolutists in society. Just because we can do something about it, doesn't mean we should, or to such an extent, for such low levels of intoxicants.

Yes, as a matter of fact I would be OK with a pilot or a surgeon having a couple of drinks with lunch, if that's what he does and it never causes a problem. Just the same as it's his judgment call if he chooses to work while sleep deprived. (of which surgeons are the perfect example and someone may live because of it) I care more about the end result.

I would rather have the volunteer fire department come to my burning house rather than in unison all saying to the dispatcher "sorry, I've had a few drinks"

Anyway, we are never going to agree.

Re:Nannystate?

[Americano]

So your argument is that "I'd rather have someone who's impaired than nobody?"

Except of course:
1) It's a false dichotomy, those are not your only two choices.
2) "impaired from being drunk" and "impaired from lack of sleep" and "impaired from being ill" are not all mutually exclusive conditions. In fact, it's far more likely that you'll get the doctor who's "had a drink, and didn't sleep well last night, and is starting to feel the effects of a cold."
3) You're never going to be told, "Sorry the entire fire department is drunk, can't help you," because they HAVE these rules and standards in place that are far more restrictive than the "ridiculous" drunk driving laws you're scoffing at. If you think they get to "choose" to work with no sleep, you should look up the term "crew rest," as it applies to pilots and other flight crew.

Guess what: Exactly one of the impairments you've cited is absolutely subject to the control of the person who is impaired - it's the alcohol, which will only *exacerbate* "all of the normal impairments" like sleepiness, distraction, and illness. I can't choose not to get a cold this week, or choose not to have a bout of insomnia. I can choose whether or not I have a double of Jack Daniels with a Guinness back and then getting behind the wheel of my car.

if that's what he does and it never causes a problem.

That's a pretty fucking GIANT conditional, there, champ, and a complete fucking dodge. Given that even low-by-legal-standards levels of alcohol in your blood *do* cause measurable degradation of various judgement, reasoning, and coordination skills, it's safe to say that "if it never causes a problem" is a condition that will *never* be met. Therefore, it's reasonable to demand that people refrain from drinking ANY alcohol while performing complex and/or dangerous tasks which could result in large amounts of damage and loss of life - like driving a car, like operating heavy machinery, like performing surgery, like flying an airplane. That the law lets you have a drink or two before driving at all is pretty permissive - doctors, pilots, police, and other people who keep you alive every day don't even get to have that much.

Once again, we are talking about *personal responsibility*. And the *responsible* thing to do is to not impair yourself further before performing complex and dangerous tasks. Anything else is purely rationalization made by somebody who wants to feel good about driving drunk or rail against some sort of perceived government encroachment into peoples' private lives by enacting public safety regulations.

Re:Nannystate?

[kimvette]

I'm thinking in terms of when you're stuck stopped on the parking lot known as Route 128 (in other words, you're in heavy stop & go traffic where you're stopped 20 seconds, then proceed a two and a half car lengths, and then are stopped again for another 20 seconds), and debating on whether or not it will be quicker to get off exit 15 and take back roads instead. I'm not thinking that responsible people would be reading the notifications at 55 mph traffic.

One of my least favoriate sayings

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that driving is a privilege and therefore you give up certain rights when driving.

I don't understand this mindset at all. The first time we heard that driving was a privilege it was from our parents because we wanted to borrow the car. We are grown ups now. I don't ask permission to stay out late and I should not have to get permission from 'dad' to borrow the car. The government is not our parents. This driving is a privileged thing is statist bull. It is a right. It might not be enumerated and there are certainly things one can do where due process can be used to restrict that right but it is not a privilege and I don't give up other rights because I am driving.

What? No self discipline?

[erroneus]

I often bemoan the existence of the "snooze" button. An alarm clock is one thing -- a useful tool that nearly anyone who wants to keep their lives on schedule can make use of. And when it comes to not answering the phone or texting while driving? I have a personal policy against that... but have violated that policy once in a while.

Self discipline is tough. It's worth developing though. I have an alarm on my phone for waking up and another for going to work. It's a system that works for me. I don't use the snooze button though. And if I had an app available to me to disable the phone while driving, I would use it.

I had to learn the hard way... a few times... not to get into "bidding wars" on eBay. Now I just set my max bid and walk away. I do things to discipline myself frequently. I am a very successful dieter! But having reminders and other aids to keep you on track is a choice that can be made and helps those who are not naturally so organized. I am just not! I have forgotten my own birthday on occasions, so how can I be expected to remember anyone else's or to do anything else on time without reminders?

I have tried to strengthen some skills in my life that I have finally given up on. Without tampering with my ability to concentrate and focus on problems, (which is something I don't want to compromise) I just find it impossible to have a "sense of time" at all. So you can appreciate just how much my first blackberry phone changed my life! Suddenly my phone was telling me about everything I needed to do.

One might say "can't you just do it for yourself?" To them, I say "nope! I simply cannot." I have tried and whatever ability others may have, I simply do not possess. And the moment I accepted that fact, the less I hated myself.

Okay, to be clear:

I can diet successfully. I can develop and build all sorts of good habits and learn to resist desires. I can, on most occasions, resist driving while using the phone. But I can't be on time without devices reminding me to be. But because I understand that about myself, I can also see how others can have problems with diet, bad habits, addictions and using the phone while driving. We all have our weaknesses. And when there are devices and techniques to help people overcome these weaknesses, I expect people to want to use them. It is those people who know their weaknesses and choose to do nothing about them that really bother me.

Re:What? No self discipline?

[TheL0ser]

I often bemoan the existence of the "snooze" button.

My line of thinking on the snooze button is: If your alarm goes off, and you have time to hit the snooze button without it mattering, stop setting the alarm early. The fact it's an alarm means nothing if people can say "oh I can wait 10 more minutes".

Re:What? No self discipline?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

If your alarm goes off, and you have time to hit the snooze button without it mattering, stop setting the alarm early. The fact it's an alarm means nothing if people can say "oh I can wait 10 more minutes".

It's not that the 10 minutes doesn't matter. It's "I feel tired enough that I can justify getting in trouble for being 10 minutes late(r)". Possibly multiple times sequentially (much like *1* ice cream sandwich won't make you fat, saying that every time you want one *will* make you fat).

so to answer your question, it matters. Maybe you skip breakfast/a shower. Maybe you speed to work. Maybe you're late. The point is, you want a device to help you get up/start moving when you planned to. You purchased it. And it has this horrible flaw that lets you trick yourself into thinking the time is flexible.

Re:What? No self discipline?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

One might say "can't you just do it for yourself?" To them, I say "nope! I simply cannot." I have tried and whatever ability others may have, I simply do not possess. And the moment I accepted that fact, the less I hated myself.

You probably can. I have controlled my wakeup time before, but I usually rely on an alarm clock... as poorly as you do. But it's not that you cannot, it's that there's a far better solution than expending the effort. Hell, if there was a pill that made people perfectly fit, I'd imagine that with few exceptions even people who currently work out would take the damn pill and instead do something else with that time. And that's a good thing.

Re:What? No self discipline?

[Miamicanes]

Snoozing serves a semi-useful purpose. If you're in the deepest phase of sleep, when the alarm goes off, it might take 30 seconds or more to even become *aware* of its significance, and if you were to get out of bed immediately at that point, you'd be borderline sleepwalking. An effective alarm is one that requires some degree of puzzle-solving skill and physical action to turn off the alarm for good, but increasingly demanding activity with shorter quiet intervals to hit 'snooze'. Ideally, to turn off an alarm "for real", you should have to be physically out of bed and on the other side of the room. By turning the alarm/radio back on every few minutes, it keeps you from drifting back into deep sleep, so each time you're progressively more awake than before. If it annoys you and gets your adrenaline flowing, so much the better.

Also, the most effective strategy for winning things at the lowest price on eBay is sniping. If you place your genuine max bid well ahead of the auction's end, there's a good chance that someone's going to end up outbidding you by 13 cents at the last second. If you wait until there's literally no time for anybody else to react to your bid, you achieve two goals -- nobody else has time to outbid your winning bid, and you yourself can't get caught up in auction fever and raise your bid above your pre-decided max bid either if it ends up losing. I don't think I've *ever* won an auction on eBay by placing a max bid days before it ended and walking away. On the other hand, I win about 85% of the auctions I snipe.

Re:What? No self discipline?

[jeff4747]

Some of us experience a far greater difficulty in waking than others. It's common among those who never remember their dreams - they don't spend much time in light sleep, so they're always waking up from a deep sleep (the dream angle is you don't dream in a deep sleep).

As a result, the alarm/snooze/fall back asleep, alarm/snooze/fall back asleep, alarm/get up pattern works a lot better than setting the alarm for 20 minutes later. It emulates the 'light' sleep I should be doing.

Re:What? No self discipline?

[TheRealGrogan]

My line of thinking on the snooze button is: If your alarm goes off, and you have time to hit the snooze button without it mattering, stop setting the alarm early. The fact it's an alarm means nothing if people can say "oh I can wait 10 more minutes".

There is actually a bit of science behind that 10 minute snooze button. It doesn't always work out (because you don't necessarily fall back to sleep immediately) but if you wake up from the wrong phase of sleep feeling like crap, an additional 10 minutes of shallow sleep can make you feel more refreshed.

Of course most people do use it in silly ways like you say, (i.e. setting their alarm a few snooze button cycles early knowing they are going to use it), but it's not intended for such procrastination.

Re:What? No self discipline?

[amRadioHed]

My line of thinking on the snooze button is: If your alarm goes off, and you have no time to hit the snooze button without it mattering, stop setting the alarm late.

Some people want to have time to relax in the morning: read the news, check email, whatever. But if you're too tired on a given day those things can be sacrificed for a few more minutes in bed. OTOH, if you set your alarm so you never have time to spare in the morning then you are running around every morning urgently getting ready to run out the door. Hardly a pleasant way to live.

Re:What? No self discipline?

[Thing 1]

Also, you're more likely to collide with other commuters trying to get to work.

Re:What? No self discipline?

[coolmadsi]

I usually set an alarm earlier than I need to get up, and snooze it until I actually have to get up. The snooze is partially a fail-safe in case I fall back asleep again and need re-awakening, and partially because it is rare that I can hear an alarm and be awake enough to get up straight away; if I could do that I probably wouldn't need the alarm.

Like DRM...

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely these kind of things can only be bad...

The problem is not people doing bad/unethical things but the fact that people want to do those things.

By putting on a technological restriction (like GPS-based speed limiter or anti-texting mechanism) you only annoy people, further dilute their freedom and cause problems elsewhere.

Because a world where every little thing you want to do is restricted by a machine, as perfect as it may look on paper is exceedingly boring and not worth living in.

Someone will come up with prior art, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember seeing this around 1991 (not saying this is when it was invented, just when I first saw it), where many MUDs (kids, think of this as the progenitor of MMORPGs) had a kick-your-self-off feature, where you could tell the game, "Don't let me play again until this date" for addicts who couldn't control themselves. This was presumably so that people wouldn't fail to do their homework, get themselves fired, etc.

Re:Someone will come up with prior art, but..

[plover]

They've been around for a long, long time. Someone added application permission hours to our mainframe to disable certain game programs (Adventure) until after school hours. This was back in the 1970s.

Can technology detect bad behavior?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does technology have the ability to distinguish good and bad behavior? Or just a subset of bad behaviors?

Take for example, traffic cameras. What do they detect? Speeding and red light violations. What do they not detect? Tailgating, illegal lane changes, aggressive/dangerous driving and so on.

I would prefer rewarding good behavior. Like getting free tolls every now and then for driving well.

The Brits already did it!

[korgitser]

Something about a Clockwork Orange. Did that enforcement real good...

We Need It!

[b4upoo]

One of the great conflicts we may see soon is the closing of traditional school buildings as electronic, at home education becomes the norm. That sets family against family in that those families in which the father and mother or single parent homes have no way to keep their kids doing their school work on computers. Yet homes with a stay at home parent as well as people who do not have children have no reason to support physical school properties. With modern electronics we can be certain that the child attends his online courses and that a truant officer soon arrives if the kid cuts classes. We can also make certain that the right student is answering the test questions.
                      Those employees who work at home can also be watched as well as offices where the business owner is frequently on the road. Drug sniffing technology can also track down illegal drug users or those that simply live in homes where illegal drugs are used. Employers may well get rid of people who have drug traces in their homes or molecules of drugs on their clothing. All in all it will simply keep people honest.

Re: We Need It!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope not! When I have a day off from work I want my kids to be at school! How else am I going to be able to wrest the off of them?!

Re: We Need It!

[Thing 1]

"Illegal drugs" generally aren't either.

Re:Eyes

[TaoPhoenix]

Nah, because you remembered it's Screen Name Tab Password Tab Tab Tab Favorites Tab Tab search Tab Tab Advanced Tab Tab Rare CD Tab Tab Arrow down past Amazon Arrow down past BMI Tab Tab Other Tab Enter Tab Enter Tab Click to select Advanced Def Leppard Tab Live Tab Checkout Tab Enter CC Tab Tab 4705 5826 5214 5414 Tab Exp 12-16 Tab 524

Software police?

[Shaiku]

So far I haven't had any iPhone apps kick my door in at 4am, shoot my dog, drag me around the house half-naked while pointing guns in my face, make sexual remarks about my startled wife, stand on my chest so I can't breathe even though I'm not resisting, and then drop some coke when they fail to find anything and then admit to having entered the wrong house 10 years later after I'm financially ruined from lawsuits and losing my job.

So no, we haven't entered a time when apps and gadgets are taking the place of cops.

Re:Software police?

[plover]

Yeah, I didn't download that app either.

Infraction detected!

[Hartree]

Please attach the electrodes, Sir.

I remind you, I am your lawful monitoring AI.

Either comply, or I'll summon a representative of the major sanctions division.

I've done this for a long time.

[thesandtiger]

Ever since I've had a pda I've done things like this.

Every evening 30, 15 and then 5 minutes before I usually leave the office, I get a meeting reminder: "Maybe you can walk home today instead of taking the bus?" Maybe half the time I say "Oh, yeah, good idea."

I wrote a pretty simple application that will send me an email before I leave work; the email contains a suggestion for a meal based on recipes I've collected over the year with the ingredients broken out into a shopping list. A few times a week I'll detour to the market to make that meal rather than go home and do delivery.

When I quit smoking some years back, I put my cash and credit cards into a ziplock baggie with "Remember: You quit smoking" on it because, after smoking for years, it was simply my habit to walk to the store and get a pack, and I'd find myself doing it by rote without thinking about it. The baggie and the note made me stop and say "Oh, yeah, duh, why am I here?" and break out of my routine.

Little nudges can help loads. You might disregard them sometimes, or even most of the time, but they can help you start to do healthier things.

cutting off credit-card spending ?

[Anonymous Coward]

a program that cuts off credit-card spending

It's called a "debit-card" and you cannot spend more than you actually have in your account. Neat trick, isn't it ?

Pinball wizard

[ejreed]

Just give me a good alarm clock and a pinball game. I'm a classic...old by any other name... Pinball Museum Provides a Slice of American History Washington, DC is filled with some of America's best known museums and many more less famous ones. Take a look inside one of those lesser-known establishments, and you'll find a place filled with passion, noise, and a speeding silver ball. http://www.newslook.com/videos/279774-pinball-museum-provides-a-slice-of-american-history?autoplay=true

Jamming 3G

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the P20B jammer knocks out 3G too. So through your vigilante bravado, you unilaterally screw over the five other folks on the bus quietly checking their email/reading the news/etc. You're a real hero.

as a psychologist

[stupidsocialscientis]

I would like to point out that, by using these supports, you are becoming mindful of, and acquiring new behaviors. Given sufficient time, repetition, and success, they will become new, adaptive behaviors and eventually habits - assuming you are not prompting/reminding yourself to do maladaptive behaviors. This is not outsourcing self-control, but enhancing it to help with skill acquisition. During development we had external supports to learn many things such as tying shoes, learning trig, and so on, eventually we internalized these processes. This is simply an electronic means of doing so.

Yes, finally, about time too!

[Anonymous Coward]

I (for one, but not the only one), am glad its finally happened. A car that sends out a bluetooth signal that kills the phone in the car when its moving. You can't text when its moving. You can't program the GPS when its moving. Dammit Jim!!! You actually (DAMMIT!) have to drive the car when you are in the car and its moving. Oh, but my wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/kid/dog is using the phone.... no problem. We have sensors that determine if two people are in the car and allow it if two are in the car, disable if only one is in the car. Either that or I up the power level of the mobile cell phone jammer and make sure everyone within 50 feet of my car has zero bars and a dropped call. When you are around me, I don't want you tailgateing because you are paying attention to the Henderson deal and not to my brake lights. I don't want you fumbling for sales figures when the light turns green, then I miss the turn (even though 3 could have gone through), and all I get from you is an angry look when I blow the horn (well after a New York minute). Its a device that weighs 1-2 tons. Its capable of untold destruction and kills thousands every year. Its the most dangerous piece of equipment most people own. And yet people feel the urge to 'multitask' when their clock cycle is slow, their context switch time is painfully slow, they are incredibly far from hard real time, and the odds of catastrophe are incredibly high. Get off the damn phone already Beoch! Get your mind on the road.

Good behaviour cannot be enforced!

[fluido]

It depends on what life's ultimate goal is. If it is as I trust it to be - personal growth - enforced "good" behaviour brings nothing at all to me, and thus it is not good at all. Not only do I not grow by blindly obeying orders, but my discriminating capabilities are progressively dulled.

Our uniqueness as human beings is that we are provided with free will. The "bad" option must be available to me if I am to develop my ability to choose what's good for my personal growth.

(what's more: the decision about what's good and what's bad is bounced up (or down?) the power ladder. If you don't trust yourself for that decision, would you trust some remote politician? They are human, too. And often, they are found to be wanting on the ethical plane...)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[hashwolf]

I have no problem with others knowing where I am at all times, how much money I have in my bank account, how I spend my money, etc. ...

As long as I can check their same details!

we can't

[Tom]

Well, truth of the matter is that we can't. Humans are horrible at estimating their own abilities and limitations, most of us are either bad or employ tricks to keep schedules and stay on track with regular, boring things, and there are whole areas where our "intuition" goes so dramatically wrong it ain't funny.

You can call it "mom, cop" or other terms loaded with negativity in this context, but the fact is that we need support like this, and the more you laugh about it, the more likely it is that you need it most.

"...FORCED..." which is precisely the point...

[Anonymous Coward]

when Big Brother decides that no PASSENGERS in a car are allowed to use their cellphones,

that you are only allowed to see certain content
( net non-neutrality, and the US assertion that anyone viewing WikiLeaks will be considered untrustworthy or a threat... ),

and there isn't any accountability ( the black boxes in cars can be used against the car-owner by the car-maker, but can't be used by the car-owner to prove they did things right, to defend themselves in court, police routinely confiscate photo or video evidence of their abuse of our lives or rights, and want to criminalize the capturing of police criminality/ abuse outright )...

then you're looking at the same PRINCIPLE mentioned in the bible's Revelation, about people not being ALLOWED to buy anything or sell anything, unless microchipped.

Viva Slippery Slope...

Viva upcoming Tipping Point...

Sow and Reap authoritarianism...

How tech is killing Darwinism

[Syberz]

For the love of god, everyday there's a new gadget out that removes the responsibility from people, this is getting ridiculous. You need an app to prevent you from using your cell while driving?? Just don't answer the fucking thing! You need your credit card to tell you when to stop spending? Are you retarded? People will eventually rely on tech for everything and their brains will whither and die out of sheer boredom and lack of use.