Firstly, which swine stole my Handle??
Having waded through two pages of replies and waited for my account to register, I've had plenty of time to mull over what I wanted to put in this reply. There are many points that need to be addressed and many misconceptions that should also be corrected. I do apologise for the somewhat long and drawn out post, but my two pen'orth is a BIG tuppence.
Firstly, from the technical perspective, after all that is the bent of Slashdot:
1.) GPS. Ha-ha-bloody-har. Any of you people go maountaineering, fell running, rockclimbing? The first people who will laugh at you when you suggest GPS for finding anything smaller than a building the size of a scyscraper are mountain rescue teams. Why? Because the whole point of GPS is that it works by grid reference, and uses a satellite in low-earth orbit to make that reference. With me so far? Well, guess what. The smallest unit of measurement that a GPS unit can reference is between 10 and one hundred metres, depending upon the surrounding clutter. One hundred metres!! That's the length of a soccer pitch. Go on. I challenge you, you find anything person-sized in up to 10,000 sqaure metres of clutter. You're a better man than I, and as part of my self defence training, I've had 8 years of situational awareness and observation training. From the aforementioned rescue team example, that area makes the use of GPS personal safety systems almost stupid.
2.) Based on point 1: The chances of you finding someone who has just 'wandered' away in this situation, especially indoors are at best, slim. Now you go out into the street. A nice, busy NY city street, with cars flying by in both directions. Any one of those cars could have your child in. It's not a pleasant thought, and even less pleasant when you realise that the signal would be very dilute, inside a moving FARADAY CAGE.
3.) This is NOT Enemy Of The State. Most of what you see in that movie, and I'm ashamed that the scientifically minded do not realise it, is many years hence. Indeed, tracking targets down to the nearest grid reference with that level of speed requires some serious power control hardware and software, and processing power. I saw a Physics professor take that film apart, using nothing more than first principles. It's nice to see that the researchers bothered doing the maths. At the time of release, the kind of power station required to facilitate all that ALU horsepower and telecomms was about the size of two forty foot trailers, side by side - that's just the powerpack. NASA aren't launching payloads anywhere near that big.
4.) There is no such thing as kid-proof.
5.) There is certainly no such thing as maniac-proof.
6.) And, as an aside, for the poster who brought Jamie Bulger's case into this - I agree, it was a horrific case. I'm not just saying this a reasearch student who reads the papers... I'm inquisitive by nature, and nowhere near as blasé or judgmental as many would like my tone of voice to suggest, but I make sure I know all I can find out before I get on my soapbox. The case was savage... The reason it was so huge and terrified parents all over the country was because nothing of its kind had happened before. That it was such a new thing was why so many were up in arms. Parents, mine included, and I was more than old enough to look after myself when this happened, were suddenly painfully aware that it wasn't just adults who were capable of hurting their children, but other children as well. The world wasn't that safe for their offspring in the first place, but now it was even less so.
Which brings me around to the way humans think:
7.) There is no sensible reason for the way parents behave. The decisions you make, we all make when it comes to children, are not logical. We don't make them because we've weighed up the options, we make them because the last two million years has bred the majority of us to be terrified of losing the next generation, as they are necessary for the continuation of our species. Exactly the same reasons cause babies, who will put anything in their mouths to suddenly stop eating things as they become toddlers, finicky to the point of distraction. The very same foodstuff will be refused if served mashed instead of whole, or vice versa... That's a genetic thing - preservation of the child. In days gone, toddlers who could perambulate suddenly became clingy, and panicked if a recognised adult was not about. They wouldn't eat anything unless they hd tried it before - ensured it was safe. This all goes to show that humans as a species have come no further as animals... We've just got bigger, nicer houses and a better healthcare policy. We're still animals, partially ruled by instinct. That's why this debate has aroused so much scorn from the parents who've lashed out at those they've assumed have no children because of what they've said, and an equal volume of venom from the camp that preaches the use of logic.
I have two brothers, both of whom I have helped bring up. I have no children of my own, but have had plenty of input in bringing up the children of friends and family. I haven't got the genetic parent-offspring bond, and I know that therefore I don't have the irrational response of parents to things even vaguely threatening to their children. I'm not knocking it. It's kept us here for millenia, and without it we wouldn't have got this far.
I just hope that if and when I have kids, I step back to think, and let them have that space. Maybe I'm a bit better equipped to be that safety net for them, maybe not, some people are naturally alert, all the time... The last thing I want is for my kids to be scared to cross the street. I want to be able to trust their judgment when they make decisions for themselves.
And, now the more unpleasant aspects. namely the society bent:
1.) I have serious ethical questions about a company that markets a glorified toy for a safety purpose, especially a device with the concerns already highlighted. What worries me further is that the use of these things, as pointed out by previous posters, is that their use may become commonplace. I don't mean overnight, but as soon as one parent in a school playground says to another "Oh, I went out and bought yada for my little Matthew," irrespective of the cost, or the fact that it'll only run for x number of hours without a recharge, or that little Matthew doesn't wear it all the time, soon all the children in the class will have one. They are expensive. Fragile, irrespective of what the idiot marketing department says. And most importantly, they are a worry to parents who don't have one for their child and can't afford one. Imagine the social stigma of NOT equipping your child with an expensive waste-of-time. The paranoia of a parent who doesn't have one for their child and the worry about not knowing where they are at all times. That's before you even consider that most parents won't know where their child is even with one of these technicolour b*st*rds on (pardon me). This kind of device lulls people into a false sense of security, whether or not they want to admit it, much like having an overdraft facility on you bank account does: "no, I won't go over." Garbage.
2.) Suppose you have one. You normally don't ask you child to wear it, except when in open places, such as the mall, or the seaside, etc. Okay; in school, they're with the teacher, at home they're with you, or a friend at a friend's parent's house. In those public places, they may become separated from you. But what if little Matthew forgot to put it on, or you forgot to put it on and set it to active? Just this once? Little Matthew's mommy, tearfully explaining to Police that she forgot, just this once. People are LAZY. It's what's kept us at the top of the evolutionary ladder. Unfortuately, sometimes it's also our undoing.
3.) Schools may not even allow your child to wear it, as it as a form of pager and telecomms tool. They are not liable for the child's possessions, so may insist, from the point of view of the school's area board, that the item is removed, if not for lessons, then certainly for PE, where the risk of damage is too great. Which brings us to...
4.) Theft. It WILL happen. After all, isn't one of the suggested applications of this ting, to prevent crimes? The manufacturer acknowledges that there are bad people out there.
5.) The previously raised spectre of Mr. Franklin's conjecture about liberty and security. He has a point. I worry about the mentality of the state, to allow those who wail to influence their decisions and white papers. We have too many laws already passed if only to sate parents who were invariably the cause of the problem, through negligence. Sarah Payne? If it wasn't her, then another poor child whose parents allowed them to go off somewhere. This isn't losing a child - this is telling them to make a journey, unsupervised, over some distance and past many strange people and houses. There is a difference, it is salient, and more often then not, deadly.
6.) Contiunuing from 5: What happens when those suits in charge decide that we've softened enough to tag us all? I have a 5 litre vat of industrial strength whoopass here for the first idiot who says, "But if we've done nothing wrong, we have nothing to hide." Hide from whom, dammit?? Positions of power attarct those who are morally repugnant and open to corruption. Absolute power doesn't corrupt absolutely, because those with sense realise the danger of power and shy from too much. Invariable, the dishonest try to come to power, because it is their natural element. Look at Congress. Or The Houses of Parliament. You only have to speak to a Lawyer / Solicitor / Barrister / Police Officer to realise that not all Police Officers or Federal / Government investigators are entirely honest either. It's why they took the job.
Anyway. That's how I see it. Feel free to respond. I apologise for missing anyhthing, and for my tone in some parts, but this kind of subject arouses a certain degree of passion in, me if nothing more than because I worry about the state of mankind...
Falanx, signing off.
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, which swine stole my Handle?? Having waded through two pages of replies and waited for my account to register, I've had plenty of time to mull over what I wanted to put in this reply. There are many points that need to be addressed and many misconceptions that should also be corrected. I do apologise for the somewhat long and drawn out post, but my two pen'orth is a BIG tuppence. Firstly, from the technical perspective, after all that is the bent of Slashdot: 1.) GPS. Ha-ha-bloody-har. Any of you people go maountaineering, fell running, rockclimbing? The first people who will laugh at you when you suggest GPS for finding anything smaller than a building the size of a scyscraper are mountain rescue teams. Why? Because the whole point of GPS is that it works by grid reference, and uses a satellite in low-earth orbit to make that reference. With me so far? Well, guess what. The smallest unit of measurement that a GPS unit can reference is between 10 and one hundred metres, depending upon the surrounding clutter. One hundred metres!! That's the length of a soccer pitch. Go on. I challenge you, you find anything person-sized in up to 10,000 sqaure metres of clutter. You're a better man than I, and as part of my self defence training, I've had 8 years of situational awareness and observation training. From the aforementioned rescue team example, that area makes the use of GPS personal safety systems almost stupid. 2.) Based on point 1: The chances of you finding someone who has just 'wandered' away in this situation, especially indoors are at best, slim. Now you go out into the street. A nice, busy NY city street, with cars flying by in both directions. Any one of those cars could have your child in. It's not a pleasant thought, and even less pleasant when you realise that the signal would be very dilute, inside a moving FARADAY CAGE. 3.) This is NOT Enemy Of The State. Most of what you see in that movie, and I'm ashamed that the scientifically minded do not realise it, is many years hence. Indeed, tracking targets down to the nearest grid reference with that level of speed requires some serious power control hardware and software, and processing power. I saw a Physics professor take that film apart, using nothing more than first principles. It's nice to see that the researchers bothered doing the maths. At the time of release, the kind of power station required to facilitate all that ALU horsepower and telecomms was about the size of two forty foot trailers, side by side - that's just the powerpack. NASA aren't launching payloads anywhere near that big. 4.) There is no such thing as kid-proof. 5.) There is certainly no such thing as maniac-proof. 6.) And, as an aside, for the poster who brought Jamie Bulger's case into this - I agree, it was a horrific case. I'm not just saying this a reasearch student who reads the papers... I'm inquisitive by nature, and nowhere near as blasé or judgmental as many would like my tone of voice to suggest, but I make sure I know all I can find out before I get on my soapbox. The case was savage... The reason it was so huge and terrified parents all over the country was because nothing of its kind had happened before. That it was such a new thing was why so many were up in arms. Parents, mine included, and I was more than old enough to look after myself when this happened, were suddenly painfully aware that it wasn't just adults who were capable of hurting their children, but other children as well. The world wasn't that safe for their offspring in the first place, but now it was even less so. Which brings me around to the way humans think: 7.) There is no sensible reason for the way parents behave. The decisions you make, we all make when it comes to children, are not logical. We don't make them because we've weighed up the options, we make them because the last two million years has bred the majority of us to be terrified of losing the next generation, as they are necessary for the continuation of our species. Exactly the same reasons cause babies, who will put anything in their mouths to suddenly stop eating things as they become toddlers, finicky to the point of distraction. The very same foodstuff will be refused if served mashed instead of whole, or vice versa... That's a genetic thing - preservation of the child. In days gone, toddlers who could perambulate suddenly became clingy, and panicked if a recognised adult was not about. They wouldn't eat anything unless they hd tried it before - ensured it was safe. This all goes to show that humans as a species have come no further as animals... We've just got bigger, nicer houses and a better healthcare policy. We're still animals, partially ruled by instinct. That's why this debate has aroused so much scorn from the parents who've lashed out at those they've assumed have no children because of what they've said, and an equal volume of venom from the camp that preaches the use of logic. I have two brothers, both of whom I have helped bring up. I have no children of my own, but have had plenty of input in bringing up the children of friends and family. I haven't got the genetic parent-offspring bond, and I know that therefore I don't have the irrational response of parents to things even vaguely threatening to their children. I'm not knocking it. It's kept us here for millenia, and without it we wouldn't have got this far. I just hope that if and when I have kids, I step back to think, and let them have that space. Maybe I'm a bit better equipped to be that safety net for them, maybe not, some people are naturally alert, all the time... The last thing I want is for my kids to be scared to cross the street. I want to be able to trust their judgment when they make decisions for themselves. And, now the more unpleasant aspects. namely the society bent: 1.) I have serious ethical questions about a company that markets a glorified toy for a safety purpose, especially a device with the concerns already highlighted. What worries me further is that the use of these things, as pointed out by previous posters, is that their use may become commonplace. I don't mean overnight, but as soon as one parent in a school playground says to another "Oh, I went out and bought yada for my little Matthew," irrespective of the cost, or the fact that it'll only run for x number of hours without a recharge, or that little Matthew doesn't wear it all the time, soon all the children in the class will have one. They are expensive. Fragile, irrespective of what the idiot marketing department says. And most importantly, they are a worry to parents who don't have one for their child and can't afford one. Imagine the social stigma of NOT equipping your child with an expensive waste-of-time. The paranoia of a parent who doesn't have one for their child and the worry about not knowing where they are at all times. That's before you even consider that most parents won't know where their child is even with one of these technicolour b*st*rds on (pardon me). This kind of device lulls people into a false sense of security, whether or not they want to admit it, much like having an overdraft facility on you bank account does: "no, I won't go over." Garbage. 2.) Suppose you have one. You normally don't ask you child to wear it, except when in open places, such as the mall, or the seaside, etc. Okay; in school, they're with the teacher, at home they're with you, or a friend at a friend's parent's house. In those public places, they may become separated from you. But what if little Matthew forgot to put it on, or you forgot to put it on and set it to active? Just this once? Little Matthew's mommy, tearfully explaining to Police that she forgot, just this once. People are LAZY. It's what's kept us at the top of the evolutionary ladder. Unfortuately, sometimes it's also our undoing. 3.) Schools may not even allow your child to wear it, as it as a form of pager and telecomms tool. They are not liable for the child's possessions, so may insist, from the point of view of the school's area board, that the item is removed, if not for lessons, then certainly for PE, where the risk of damage is too great. Which brings us to... 4.) Theft. It WILL happen. After all, isn't one of the suggested applications of this ting, to prevent crimes? The manufacturer acknowledges that there are bad people out there. 5.) The previously raised spectre of Mr. Franklin's conjecture about liberty and security. He has a point. I worry about the mentality of the state, to allow those who wail to influence their decisions and white papers. We have too many laws already passed if only to sate parents who were invariably the cause of the problem, through negligence. Sarah Payne? If it wasn't her, then another poor child whose parents allowed them to go off somewhere. This isn't losing a child - this is telling them to make a journey, unsupervised, over some distance and past many strange people and houses. There is a difference, it is salient, and more often then not, deadly. 6.) Contiunuing from 5: What happens when those suits in charge decide that we've softened enough to tag us all? I have a 5 litre vat of industrial strength whoopass here for the first idiot who says, "But if we've done nothing wrong, we have nothing to hide." Hide from whom, dammit?? Positions of power attarct those who are morally repugnant and open to corruption. Absolute power doesn't corrupt absolutely, because those with sense realise the danger of power and shy from too much. Invariable, the dishonest try to come to power, because it is their natural element. Look at Congress. Or The Houses of Parliament. You only have to speak to a Lawyer / Solicitor / Barrister / Police Officer to realise that not all Police Officers or Federal / Government investigators are entirely honest either. It's why they took the job. Anyway. That's how I see it. Feel free to respond. I apologise for missing anyhthing, and for my tone in some parts, but this kind of subject arouses a certain degree of passion in, me if nothing more than because I worry about the state of mankind... Falanx, signing off.