People should know by now that if you don't want to have the ending spoiled for you, don't read the plot section. It's not a review. It's an encyclopedic article.
The real question is: What stupid people start reading a summary of a story, continue to read it after they must have realized that it contains the storyline, read the ending, and then complain about it???
Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general often (if not always) give away the ending... so... what are we discussing again, and why? Might as well complain that the sky is blue. If anything, the Agatha Christie community should just be offended that the website about this "famous" story was only completed in 2010.
In order for this to work properly, the surveillance must keep an eye on the prisoners. But humans are group animals - prisoners outside a prison will have contact with innocent citizens. So, logically, surveillance will be forced to keep an eye on everybody.
Checking whether they show up at work at the right time, and leave at the right time can be automated. But how to check what a "prisoner" does in its free time? How to make sure they don't engage in other illegal activities? You must keep an eye on the surroundings, and all the people who are in contact with the convict.
I conclude that this plan has the potential to be the biggest privacy failure in history. The prisoners win, the system wins, but the innocent bystanders who never do something wrong will have to fear that the nation-wide surveillance will be massively extended. (But hey, they got nothing to hide, right?)
But everybody will break the law at some point... and with such a huge surveillance, soon the government will own everybody. Ok, ok, I might exaggerate a bit... but this is no development to applaud for.
Why do you think that? I'm curious. Why not Mars orbit? It's not like the belt is actually that dense. I mean, you could blindly aim a spaceship through the belt, and as long as it can take collisions with pebble size objects, it'll almost certainly make it through unscathed. Most of its mass lies in few bodies. Putting a settlement on/around one of those would be just like putting one on any non-earth moon.
My thinking is that the best place to set up self sufficient colonies independent of Earth is to start in a location where they can be dependent on Earth. Bootstrapping and all. Once you build an self sufficient earth orbit, or lunar settlement, then you can get the hell out of there and do whatever, as long as your power and transport can scale.
Agreed. Build something self sustaining in earth orbit, and then move it somewhere else. The best option I see for the near future is our good ol' ISS. Its planned lifetime isn't too long, but at the end of the planned lifetime, it's not dead yet. Why not fit it with engines and extend it with a food module, and a landing craft with its own fuel generator (which requires only water)?
I hear everybody talking about mining colonies on the asteriods... but I still have to see a blast furnace or aluminium smelter in zero gravity... Does anyone at NASA realize how long the process chain is from ores to the sheets of high quality alloys and carbon fibre materials they use? Damn, it's one thing to produce raw pig iron, but it's something different altogether to build all the different process steps in zero gravity.
Then there is the issue of carbon. Several metals come from blast furnaces... those need carbon (which is turned into CO2). In space, carbon isn't exactly abundant, so that should be recycled...
It's a noble thought to start the development of this long chain of processes... but I am sorry to say that I don't believe that the boys at NASA can build something as robust as a metal refinery... NASA has experience with zero G, and with getting stuff into orbit around the right planet, but that's where their useful expertise stops when it comes to space mining.
I sometimes feel bad for the guys in charge, it's apparently impossible to please people. We're normally clamouring for more information, operate our markets with the assumption of perfectly informed agents, run democracies that were conceived presuming some degree of voter knowledge, and heap disdain on the apparently ignorant. But a government agency tries to help consumers make decent choices by undermining the ability of companies to easily obscure certain basic information and they're told people want less info of a specific type. We’re a capricious lot.
I had a look at the two proposed sheets and thought they were nicely thorough, explained the basic assumptions, and presented the info in an easily comparable fashion. Guess it takes all sorts.
I wish I could mod that reply higher than +5.
The problem with people is exactly that: those who disagree will always shout the loudest... too little info, and the smart kids demand more. Too much info, all the lazy bastards complain that it's too complicated. And our poor politicians listen to those who shout. Try to please those who shout (especially when it comes to insignificant things that can get a lot of media attention)... Although we've never been wealthier, never been healthier, politicians must think the average citizen in a Western country is deeply unhappy.
Anyway, the easy way out of this is: Include a very short and simple "executive summary" for the lazy and the dumb. Then add the extended list of facts below that for those who are interested.
A discount from a company that has (most likely) a monopoly on something you need regularly is always welcome - you've changed the scenario a little too far in favor of the ferry here. But if I want such information, then I will sign up for a newsletter... or just grab a flyer at the ferry terminal building or on board.
I still cannot think of any situation where I'd like to be (digitally) chased by a company to buy their product...
Interesting to see how intrusive advertisements actually accomplish the exact opposite: a certain hatred against the company behind it...
I have similar experiences - some types of advertisement are just too annoying, and I will make an effort never to buy anything from that company ever again. (And I have a longer memory than the internet itself).
It all makes me wonder what kind of people can be digitally bullied into buying something online.
Effectively they're bombing a mosquito here, and we're not sure why they want to do that.
Anyone else read this wrong as "bombing a mosque"?
No, I did not read it wrong... But I guess Facebook doesn't realize yet that Muslims have a Holy Book. The religions of the world will be sued next week.
At least students will learn how easy it is to commit an act of terrorism. They will also learn that 100% security does not exist. They will therefore also learn that they should not depend on the government for their security.
And finally, they will hopefully realize that since the government has never provided full protection, and society is still functioning, the whole problem of terrorism is severely overestimated or even exaggerated.
This is a good lesson... and believe me, most kids will have these kind of thoughts anyway. The most important thing is that they never actually go any further than doing some brain exercise on the topic.
Most of the ones I know would go "Hey bubba, this don't fit. Hand me my duct-tape."
and now instead of a tank attached to the wrong equipment you have a tank unsafely attached to the wrong equipment. Not as much of an improvment as you may think.
Unfortunately, the main difference between chemistry and medicine is that people who act stupid in chemical labs often get a Darwin Award (they kill themselves). In a hospital, they kill someone else.
And that's why I think the situation in chemical labs is good enough, while hospitals can use some improvement.
Anyway, this can't be fixed. If you use incompatible sizes or connections, you'll just hear about how nurses try to break the tubes to make them compatibles instead. When people are stressed for time, they won't be doing much thinking.
It's about education and experience.
It takes less time to get a new (correct) tube than to fix two non-compatible ends together.
And anyway, it can be fixed. No nurse, no matter how stressed for time, will knowingly attach an oxygen line to a tube that she knows goes directly into the blood. So, the only thing the color codes or connections have to do is to be a reminder of what's what.
How about using color codes? Or incompatible sizes or connections?
Damn... this is so easy to fix.
In chemical industry, and in labs, color codes have been used for the last 15 millennia or something. It's completely standard. Just a sticker or some tape at both ends of a tube, indicating it can only be used for that gas or liquid. And in the case of non-standard liquids/gases, standard labels (you know, those with text on it) are used to indicate what it's used for, and what is in it.
It's simply because everybody associates it with smoking that it's so unknown that you can use it for something useful as well... Hemp is one of the fastest growing plants in the world. It's got seeds for biodiesel, but the rest of the plant is full of useful fibres or biofuels/chemicals as well... The bio-based industry would love to use this plant...
But all people can say whenever something based on hemp is brought to their attention is: "huhuuuhuhuh... stoners!"... which is a reaction I'd only expect from someone who is actually high at the moment of writing it up..... oh... wait... aaaah... I see now.
Facial recognition software is already notoriously unreliable. I suspect that this system would be even easier to fool, and even more wonky with identification. Unless you could couple a bunch of these systems together, I doubt they would be useful at all. And I'm not even sure they would be particularly useful even if they were strung together. If a fake beard can fool facial recognition, then all I have to do is add an overcoat to deal with the skeletal recognition too.
Besides, how many people share the same basic build? If the system were to get any more specific than that, it would probably require an X-ray or MRI, and that would ultimately cause *way* more deaths than any terrorist (I'll have to pass on the daily dose or radiation, thanks).
With the average airplane passenger dead before their 50's, and the rest of us scared of the security rather than the flight itself, at least it would solve the problem of the long queues for check in and security...
On a more serious note... doesn't bone deform a little if you get injured (let alone if you break it)? How is such a scan going to identify anyone in places where sports are popular (e.g. the entire world)?
On the other hand, if someone suggested imposing manditory x-ray exposure as a means to identify pedophiles, most people would probably suggest positive results be given an extra-high-intensity scan just to confirm it with a clearer image.
Hell yeah. I'd rather die in horrible agony because of severe overdose of bodyscans than having one peado walking around freely! I'll give up anything (you hear me? ANYTHING!) to catch them dirty bastards....
I'm just waiting until the paedophiles and othre dirty bastards figure that it's probably easiest to simply work for a security company. Pictures and bodyscans all day.
Unless it's a window on the south that can catch some sun. That will actually (partially) heat your house. Windows on other directions are indeed quite wasteful.
In Scandinavia, triple glass windows (standard double glass with an additional window against it) are quite standard. Just curious how that is in other places around the world.
long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 show a small seasonal variation (on Earth conditions? With lab equipment that can be subject to other seasonal variation?)
radioactive decay of the Pu-238 isotope is insensitive (within the experimental precision) to distance to the Sun
What valid conclusion can one derive from the above facts? In my opinion, exactly one, which is more research is necessary.
That conclusion can be drawn from every single number of facts. In fact, almost every research paper ends with that remark (while the researcher waits for the paper to be published, the application forms for the next subsidy or grant are already sent). I've never met a researcher who said: "Ok, we're done. Let's pack up and quit".
Yes, but there is no entry-fee to the beach for tourists. We also don't demand a large deposit from each tourist in case they are stupid enough to require resque. We also don't fine people who get resqued despite warning signs in 4 different languages.
Tourists always will eat, drink, sleep. That means: restaurant, bar, hotel/hostel. That means tax income for the local authorities who can then maintain a resque force. Simple.
You can fine stupidity, but only in extreme cases. If a tourists calls for the resque services while he calmly sits on the beach - sure: fine him.
But don't fine someone for ignorance. I know how easy it is to get into trouble. A climb starts easy. Then becomes a little more difficult. You decide to carry on a little more. Ok, little further. Just a 3 meter steep climb. Before you know it, you're 4-5 hrs away from the main road, and 10 major obstacles separate you from civilization. It's too easy for tourists to get sucked into such a trap. Prevent it by giving information, not fines.
Both involve helicopters and searching large areas. Swimmers can't make a fire, and have no iPhones though:)
Swimmers also tend to die a lot faster once they are in trouble (services have 30 min max., much less in the case of an inexperienced swimmer).
In other words: while a single resque action is easier on a sea in fair weather than in the mountains, the amount of resque services on stand-by is higher here.
I agree that mountain resque is more dangerous though. Most swimmers get into trouble when the weather is quite reasonable... and only hardcore surfers go out to sea in gale force winds... and they understand the risks.
Why not simply have a certain limit under which you pay no tax?
First 1000 euro/dollar: tax free Next 1000 euro/dollar: get licence of 300,-- Above 2000 per year: start paying tax as well...
That is just an example. I just mean to say that you'd need a progressive business tax that doesn't kill small initiatives before they make any real money.
Governments should encourage little businesses and initiatives - they make the money go round... and are often maintained by people outside office hours, therefore increasing the average productivity of a country.
Actually... the Dutch coastline does the same. Beautiful beaches, but treacherous sea currents. Thousands of swimmers get into trouble... and it's always the stupid ones who get into trouble (those who swim away from the beach, rather than parallel to it).
Should we tax all the tourists, because they may go for a swim, and may get into trouble?? Fine the stupid ones so they never come back?
No, we chose to try to inform as many as possible... and have resque services for free. Tourists keep coming (we don't scare them away with crazy fines, and they love the beaches). That brings in money, and part of that money is used to have a couple of hundred men and women in the resque servives, who are out on the water and in the air all the day.
Tourists always get into more trouble than the locals... no matter where you go.
Start charging a fee for services. Set the rates make sure they are known in advance. Outsource to a private company to provide the service (can't have emergency personnel tied up on a catering run). Done and done
Brilliant. Outsource to a single private company. Grant a monopoly. You can choose to die or to go bankrupt.
Oh, no, wait... outsource to multiple companies so that service suffers, maintenance on resque equipment is reduced, the pilots are underpaid and you have to agree to the terms first (stay only in open places, on paved paths and within 500 meters of the coffee house).
While I agree that everyone who gets into trouble in national parks is basically asking for it (nobody lives there, everybody entered by free will), a big improvement can simply be made by warnings that the rangers can't always resque you. It's not so much the gadgets which make people trust that they get resqued, it's the fact that they don't know that the rangers will let you actually sit it out for a night if it's not so serious.
Get an alarm number with someone answering the phone who judges how serious the siuation is.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that very intelligent people are not allowed to talk gibberish when they near the age of 70?
People should know by now that if you don't want to have the ending spoiled for you, don't read the plot section. It's not a review. It's an encyclopedic article.
The real question is: What stupid people start reading a summary of a story, continue to read it after they must have realized that it contains the storyline, read the ending, and then complain about it???
Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general often (if not always) give away the ending... so... what are we discussing again, and why? Might as well complain that the sky is blue.
If anything, the Agatha Christie community should just be offended that the website about this "famous" story was only completed in 2010.
Spoiler alert: here's the entire story of A Tale of Two Cities in 3 short chapters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Tale_of_Two_Cities
Spoiler alert: here's the entire story of the Lord of the Rings in 10 short paragraphs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Synopsis
Etc., etc.
In order for this to work properly, the surveillance must keep an eye on the prisoners. But humans are group animals - prisoners outside a prison will have contact with innocent citizens. So, logically, surveillance will be forced to keep an eye on everybody.
Checking whether they show up at work at the right time, and leave at the right time can be automated.
But how to check what a "prisoner" does in its free time? How to make sure they don't engage in other illegal activities? You must keep an eye on the surroundings, and all the people who are in contact with the convict.
I conclude that this plan has the potential to be the biggest privacy failure in history.
The prisoners win, the system wins, but the innocent bystanders who never do something wrong will have to fear that the nation-wide surveillance will be massively extended. (But hey, they got nothing to hide, right?)
But everybody will break the law at some point... and with such a huge surveillance, soon the government will own everybody. Ok, ok, I might exaggerate a bit... but this is no development to applaud for.
Why do you think that? I'm curious. Why not Mars orbit? It's not like the belt is actually that dense. I mean, you could blindly aim a spaceship through the belt, and as long as it can take collisions with pebble size objects, it'll almost certainly make it through unscathed. Most of its mass lies in few bodies. Putting a settlement on/around one of those would be just like putting one on any non-earth moon.
My thinking is that the best place to set up self sufficient colonies independent of Earth is to start in a location where they can be dependent on Earth. Bootstrapping and all. Once you build an self sufficient earth orbit, or lunar settlement, then you can get the hell out of there and do whatever, as long as your power and transport can scale.
Agreed. Build something self sustaining in earth orbit, and then move it somewhere else.
The best option I see for the near future is our good ol' ISS. Its planned lifetime isn't too long, but at the end of the planned lifetime, it's not dead yet. Why not fit it with engines and extend it with a food module, and a landing craft with its own fuel generator (which requires only water)?
I hear everybody talking about mining colonies on the asteriods... but I still have to see a blast furnace or aluminium smelter in zero gravity... Does anyone at NASA realize how long the process chain is from ores to the sheets of high quality alloys and carbon fibre materials they use? Damn, it's one thing to produce raw pig iron, but it's something different altogether to build all the different process steps in zero gravity.
Then there is the issue of carbon. Several metals come from blast furnaces... those need carbon (which is turned into CO2). In space, carbon isn't exactly abundant, so that should be recycled...
It's a noble thought to start the development of this long chain of processes... but I am sorry to say that I don't believe that the boys at NASA can build something as robust as a metal refinery... NASA has experience with zero G, and with getting stuff into orbit around the right planet, but that's where their useful expertise stops when it comes to space mining.
I sometimes feel bad for the guys in charge, it's apparently impossible to please people. We're normally clamouring for more information, operate our markets with the assumption of perfectly informed agents, run democracies that were conceived presuming some degree of voter knowledge, and heap disdain on the apparently ignorant. But a government agency tries to help consumers make decent choices by undermining the ability of companies to easily obscure certain basic information and they're told people want less info of a specific type. We’re a capricious lot.
I had a look at the two proposed sheets and thought they were nicely thorough, explained the basic assumptions, and presented the info in an easily comparable fashion. Guess it takes all sorts.
I wish I could mod that reply higher than +5.
The problem with people is exactly that: those who disagree will always shout the loudest... too little info, and the smart kids demand more. Too much info, all the lazy bastards complain that it's too complicated.
And our poor politicians listen to those who shout. Try to please those who shout (especially when it comes to insignificant things that can get a lot of media attention)... Although we've never been wealthier, never been healthier, politicians must think the average citizen in a Western country is deeply unhappy.
Anyway, the easy way out of this is: Include a very short and simple "executive summary" for the lazy and the dumb. Then add the extended list of facts below that for those who are interested.
A discount from a company that has (most likely) a monopoly on something you need regularly is always welcome - you've changed the scenario a little too far in favor of the ferry here.
But if I want such information, then I will sign up for a newsletter... or just grab a flyer at the ferry terminal building or on board.
I still cannot think of any situation where I'd like to be (digitally) chased by a company to buy their product...
The advertisements are a recent development - if it becomes more common, the cure will also become more reliable.
The technological cure against stupid ads is bettre than a new law.
Interesting to see how intrusive advertisements actually accomplish the exact opposite: a certain hatred against the company behind it...
I have similar experiences - some types of advertisement are just too annoying, and I will make an effort never to buy anything from that company ever again. (And I have a longer memory than the internet itself).
It all makes me wonder what kind of people can be digitally bullied into buying something online.
Anyone else read this wrong as "bombing a mosque"?
No, I did not read it wrong...
But I guess Facebook doesn't realize yet that Muslims have a Holy Book. The religions of the world will be sued next week.
Resistance is futile.
At least students will learn how easy it is to commit an act of terrorism.
They will also learn that 100% security does not exist.
They will therefore also learn that they should not depend on the government for their security.
And finally, they will hopefully realize that since the government has never provided full protection, and society is still functioning, the whole problem of terrorism is severely overestimated or even exaggerated.
This is a good lesson... and believe me, most kids will have these kind of thoughts anyway. The most important thing is that they never actually go any further than doing some brain exercise on the topic.
Perhaps Google takes this lesson from Wave's failure -- merge products together, don't dev them out on an island where they won't be used.
See it as merging email with phone, and it won't work.
But... see it as merging chat with phone, and it's alright.
You clearly haven't met too many idiots.
Most of the ones I know would go "Hey bubba, this don't fit. Hand me my duct-tape."
and now instead of a tank attached to the wrong equipment you have a tank unsafely attached to the wrong equipment. Not as much of an improvment as you may think.
Unfortunately, the main difference between chemistry and medicine is that people who act stupid in chemical labs often get a Darwin Award (they kill themselves). In a hospital, they kill someone else.
And that's why I think the situation in chemical labs is good enough, while hospitals can use some improvement.
Colour blind?
Anyway, this can't be fixed. If you use incompatible sizes or connections, you'll just hear about how nurses try to break the tubes to make them compatibles instead. When people are stressed for time, they won't be doing much thinking.
It's about education and experience.
It takes less time to get a new (correct) tube than to fix two non-compatible ends together.
And anyway, it can be fixed. No nurse, no matter how stressed for time, will knowingly attach an oxygen line to a tube that she knows goes directly into the blood. So, the only thing the color codes or connections have to do is to be a reminder of what's what.
How about using color codes?
Or incompatible sizes or connections?
Damn... this is so easy to fix.
In chemical industry, and in labs, color codes have been used for the last 15 millennia or something. It's completely standard. Just a sticker or some tape at both ends of a tube, indicating it can only be used for that gas or liquid. And in the case of non-standard liquids/gases, standard labels (you know, those with text on it) are used to indicate what it's used for, and what is in it.
It's simply because everybody associates it with smoking that it's so unknown that you can use it for something useful as well...
Hemp is one of the fastest growing plants in the world. It's got seeds for biodiesel, but the rest of the plant is full of useful fibres or biofuels/chemicals as well... The bio-based industry would love to use this plant...
But all people can say whenever something based on hemp is brought to their attention is: "huhuuuhuhuh... stoners!"... which is a reaction I'd only expect from someone who is actually high at the moment of writing it up. .... oh... wait... aaaah... I see now.
*points to everyone else on /. - stoners!*
Facial recognition software is already notoriously unreliable. I suspect that this system would be even easier to fool, and even more wonky with identification. Unless you could couple a bunch of these systems together, I doubt they would be useful at all. And I'm not even sure they would be particularly useful even if they were strung together. If a fake beard can fool facial recognition, then all I have to do is add an overcoat to deal with the skeletal recognition too.
Besides, how many people share the same basic build? If the system were to get any more specific than that, it would probably require an X-ray or MRI, and that would ultimately cause *way* more deaths than any terrorist (I'll have to pass on the daily dose or radiation, thanks).
With the average airplane passenger dead before their 50's, and the rest of us scared of the security rather than the flight itself, at least it would solve the problem of the long queues for check in and security...
On a more serious note... doesn't bone deform a little if you get injured (let alone if you break it)? How is such a scan going to identify anyone in places where sports are popular (e.g. the entire world)?
On the other hand, if someone suggested imposing manditory x-ray exposure as a means to identify pedophiles, most people would probably suggest positive results be given an extra-high-intensity scan just to confirm it with a clearer image.
Hell yeah. I'd rather die in horrible agony because of severe overdose of bodyscans than having one peado walking around freely! I'll give up anything (you hear me? ANYTHING!) to catch them dirty bastards. ...
I'm just waiting until the paedophiles and othre dirty bastards figure that it's probably easiest to simply work for a security company. Pictures and bodyscans all day.
Unless it's a window on the south that can catch some sun. That will actually (partially) heat your house. Windows on other directions are indeed quite wasteful.
In Scandinavia, triple glass windows (standard double glass with an additional window against it) are quite standard. Just curious how that is in other places around the world.
Facts:
What valid conclusion can one derive from the above facts? In my opinion, exactly one, which is more research is necessary.
That conclusion can be drawn from every single number of facts. In fact, almost every research paper ends with that remark (while the researcher waits for the paper to be published, the application forms for the next subsidy or grant are already sent).
I've never met a researcher who said: "Ok, we're done. Let's pack up and quit".
More research is always necessary.
Yes, but there is no entry-fee to the beach for tourists. We also don't demand a large deposit from each tourist in case they are stupid enough to require resque. We also don't fine people who get resqued despite warning signs in 4 different languages.
Tourists always will eat, drink, sleep. That means: restaurant, bar, hotel/hostel. That means tax income for the local authorities who can then maintain a resque force. Simple.
You can fine stupidity, but only in extreme cases. If a tourists calls for the resque services while he calmly sits on the beach - sure: fine him.
But don't fine someone for ignorance. I know how easy it is to get into trouble. A climb starts easy. Then becomes a little more difficult. You decide to carry on a little more. Ok, little further. Just a 3 meter steep climb. Before you know it, you're 4-5 hrs away from the main road, and 10 major obstacles separate you from civilization. It's too easy for tourists to get sucked into such a trap. Prevent it by giving information, not fines.
Both involve helicopters and searching large areas. Swimmers can't make a fire, and have no iPhones though :)
Swimmers also tend to die a lot faster once they are in trouble (services have 30 min max., much less in the case of an inexperienced swimmer).
In other words: while a single resque action is easier on a sea in fair weather than in the mountains, the amount of resque services on stand-by is higher here.
I agree that mountain resque is more dangerous though. Most swimmers get into trouble when the weather is quite reasonable... and only hardcore surfers go out to sea in gale force winds... and they understand the risks.
Why not simply have a certain limit under which you pay no tax?
First 1000 euro/dollar: tax free
Next 1000 euro/dollar: get licence of 300,--
Above 2000 per year: start paying tax as well...
That is just an example. I just mean to say that you'd need a progressive business tax that doesn't kill small initiatives before they make any real money.
Governments should encourage little businesses and initiatives - they make the money go round... and are often maintained by people outside office hours, therefore increasing the average productivity of a country.
Actually... the Dutch coastline does the same. Beautiful beaches, but treacherous sea currents. Thousands of swimmers get into trouble... and it's always the stupid ones who get into trouble (those who swim away from the beach, rather than parallel to it).
Should we tax all the tourists, because they may go for a swim, and may get into trouble?? Fine the stupid ones so they never come back?
No, we chose to try to inform as many as possible... and have resque services for free. Tourists keep coming (we don't scare them away with crazy fines, and they love the beaches). That brings in money, and part of that money is used to have a couple of hundred men and women in the resque servives, who are out on the water and in the air all the day.
Tourists always get into more trouble than the locals... no matter where you go.
Start charging a fee for services. Set the rates make sure they are known in advance. Outsource to a private company to provide the service (can't have emergency personnel tied up on a catering run). Done and done
Brilliant. Outsource to a single private company. Grant a monopoly. You can choose to die or to go bankrupt.
Oh, no, wait... outsource to multiple companies so that service suffers, maintenance on resque equipment is reduced, the pilots are underpaid and you have to agree to the terms first (stay only in open places, on paved paths and within 500 meters of the coffee house).
While I agree that everyone who gets into trouble in national parks is basically asking for it (nobody lives there, everybody entered by free will), a big improvement can simply be made by warnings that the rangers can't always resque you. It's not so much the gadgets which make people trust that they get resqued, it's the fact that they don't know that the rangers will let you actually sit it out for a night if it's not so serious.
Get an alarm number with someone answering the phone who judges how serious the siuation is.