Buy all of your equipment from major manufacturers and you can hardly go wrong. Get your RF equipment from Rohde & Schwarz, especially high frequency signal generators and spectrum analyzers. Get your scope, meters and logic analyzer from Tektronix. Get most of the rest from Agilent. You will really have to better define the type of work you plan to do, however. For example, if you plan to work with cellular telephone equipment you will need a lot of specialized instruments just for that, but if not most of it would be useless. The cost of specialized equipment is higher than that of more mundane machines.
For planning purposes you might want to make a list of parameters associated with equipment you expect to be working with. For each record the frequencies, bandwidth and other functional parameters required. How many lines on your logic analyzer are you likely to require, and what depth memory? Do you want to have diagnostic and repair equipment or will your lab be devoted exclusively to R&D? Don't answer too quickly, because you may on occasion encounter a malfunctioning reference assembly, for example, and if you can fix it yourself it could save several days compared with sending it out for repair, or starting over with a replacement. When you complete the list it should be fairly easy to see what additional equipment you will need.
If you're unsure what you will need for some or all of it, contact sales people for the companies you plan to buy equipment from. The major companies generally give solid advice, because they would like you to buy from them again in the future. They will come to your location and arrange to demonstrate equipment for you. Of course you will still have to do your homework to evaluate their proposals.
For workbenches you will probably want to get standard height with a shelf running the full width of each and cabinets underneath. Chairs with armrests will be needed, and they should be adjustable height to suit your workbenches. Plan on lots of 48" florescent lights, good metal cabinets for storage and file cabinets for documents and drawings. A computer on each bench is not too many. You might want to look at a decent sized UPS system if it will be important that you keep some or all of the equipment running without interruption.
I think you will find that the sky's the limit when it comes to buying test and measuring equipment. You could easily order so much that you wouldn't have a place to put it all, then never use most of it. IMO there is no substitute for analyzing the work you plan to do, then match it up with the available instrumentation.
My overall advice is to buy what you know you will need before you begin working in your lab. Then you can easily add additional pieces as the need arises.
Run-away replication has already happened over forty years ago when the Starship Enterprise was overrun with tribbles. All it takes is a great intellect like that of Capt. James T. Kirk to deal with the problem.
I worked on the installation of the telecommunications network for a new airport in Asia several years ago. The airport was built on land that had been a palm oil plantation so there were lots of rats until traps brought the population down. It happened rather frequently that rats would chew through our fibers and it was a major irritant, but the biggest problem they caused was the fact that cobras were attracted by the rats.
----- RN
. . translation. . . I don't read Spanish, but this makes little sense. What good would it do to block Wikileaks to the US? I thought the goal was to keep this material out of the hands of the enemy.
RN
Several people have said essentially this. The polygraph can measure your pulse and respiration rates, your blood pressure, your galvanic skin response, and from this data it can determine your pulse and respiration rates, your blood pressure and your galvanic skin response. No machine exists that can detect a lie. If a polygraph test uncovers any information at all it's because the person being tested offered it up.
Anyone can "beat" a polygraph test simply by stating that they've told the truth as many times as necessary. A person's behavior during the test might raise concerns about other things, though.
NR
If the United States were to stop the senseless, wasteful and ineffective war on drugs, then redirect, say, 50% of that money towards drug education, I dare say drug use would decline dramatically. To that, redirect another 25% of the money to research into more effective educational methods, and within ten years the drug problem would be mostly a thing of the past. Don't scoff! Do you have any idea what we're spending? Are you aware that the majority of prison inmates are doing time for drug violations? That cost of keeping all these people in prisons is by itself a staggering sum. If you then add the cost of worldwide enforcement and interdiction efforts, you're talking about some very serious money.
These answers may not be simplistic, but the only reason they can't be easily attained can be attributed to the conundrum our politicians find themselves in. Most know that the WOD is futile, but to openly suggest an end to it is political suicide, and a few have tested that theory. Drug abuse is one of many political subjects in the US that is legislated by way of emotion, not rationale thought. For this I don't blame politicians, because not all of them fall into that trap, but those they represent usually do, and demand that their politicians do likewise.
I think we need to back up and ask ourselves what what we hope to accomplish with the WOD in the first place. To save people from the misery of drug addiction? Then how is it that we throw violators into prisons? Is living in a prison better than being addicted to a drug? If given the choice between the two, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't select prison. You?
"Wait!", you say. "None of that matters because we have to protect our children. We don't want them to be exposed to drugs, or to become people who use drugs!" That's strong motivation, and I'll be the first to agree with the sentiments. But look again. Are we accomplishing anything of the sort? Definitely not. Every child in the US is exposed to drugs in a variety of venues. Neighborhoods, schools, recreation centers. We keep trying to use force to make it stop, but we've never suceeded. We succeed only in turning them into criminals for seeking substances that human beings have craved for as long as recorded history has existed.
You reply, "The WOD may not be a perfect solution, but at least it keeps the associated crime in check. Without such a program our streets would be overrun by addicts, who would steal on a grand scale otherwise." That's another fallacy to which intelligent reasoning has not been applied. Most of the crime reportedly caused by drug abuse is in fact caused by the WOD itself! Look in your newspaper if you need proof. Few drug-related crimes involve addicts attacking people to get money for drugs. Most involve distributors fighting each other over turf, or one group stealing drugs from another. In short, most of the drug related violence is about money, not the drugs themselves, or the use thereof. The WOD perpetuates these crimes by keeping supply short and prices high. End it and drug related crime would all but go away.
Could it be that this last is the real reason the WOD continues? Could it be that the real power in the US is backing those who are raking in enormous sums of money from the drug trade? Ask yourself who benefits by keeping current policies in place. Not our children. Certainly not the majority of drug users. But if not them, who? Someone tell me, please.
I recently purchased a moderately expensive item on Ebay. The seller wanted payment through PayPal within twenty four hours, and I complied because he had an excellent rating showing hundreds of sales. The next day I was shocked when I saw that he was suddenly listed as no longer being a member. A quick search revealed that he had closed 20-30 other auctions on the same day as the one I had won. Fearing he was getting ready to disappear, I contacted him in preparation for whatever I might have to do to get Paypal's fraud insurance. He replied that Ebay had revoked his membership because he hadn't kept up with his payments to them (Ebay)! So Ebay knew this man was having trouble fulfilling his commitments, but did nothing to warn members. In fact this person was allowed to continue selling right up until the moment Ebay imposed a penalty that could easily have been forecast to increase the risk to his customers/Ebay members with outstanding orders.
Shouldn't Ebay have to warn their customers when they have an indication that one of their merchants may be a higher risk than others? An email on the subject to Ebay Customer Support was returned with the standard canned, non-sequitar reply. A subsequent complaint elicited two paragraphs of disclaimers and disavowals of all responsibility.
They make it abundantly clear that Ebay's only real concern is their own bottom line. I won't deal with them again.
NR
If you need a new TV, you'd better buy HDTV
on
CNET's HDTV World
·
· Score: 1
If you buy a non-HDTV you will get a box that will be obsolete long before it's likely to wear out--soon you won't be able to use it without a converter box. All televisions sold after December 31, 2006 must be sold with digital tuners, and broadcasters are to stop airing analog content Jan 31, 2007. Unless you pay next to nothing for an analog box, it no longer makes sense to buy anything other than HDTV.
Hmmmm. I wonder why the Best Buy salesman didn't mention that to me when I was in his store last week?
I want confirmation that Bill Gates has "ignored" Gator on the computer he uses, and instructed Microsoft employees to do similarly with their office machines. Not a concern, right Bill?
If Apple is still to be tied to proprietary hardware, where's the news? So Intel sells a few more processors. That's nice for them, but doesn't do much for anyone else.
Oh, right. There is the matter of that one guy who can't wait to run Windows on his Apple. Maybe now he'll get his chance. Then again, where would he get hardware drivers?
Excellent point. If it weren't for piracy in those countries, software like MS Windows and Office would be virtually unknown.
And what of the poor, abused software companies, who have been robbed of some of the rightful rewards of their efforts? It makes me want to gag. Software is a product that can be "stolen" in this way without costing the manufacturer anything. Nothing! Yet they claim it as "losses"?!
Talk about shameless! I wonder if it's a tax write-off?
You've missed the point. If I write a shareware program and receive no registrations, then complain that I've been cheated out of = $(#downloads * $registration) I've made an invalid assumption. The same is true when software companies count the number of pirated copies of their programs, (however they come up with that!), multiply that number by the retail price and claim that this is the amount of money they've lost to theft of their product.
Exactly. Statistics like these always assume that the "pirates" would be buying the software if they couldn't get free copies. That's a ridiculous assumption.
"It's sad the parent poster was modded overrated. His point can't be stressed enough - if people beleive kids will be better because you can choose if they can see or not 10 minutes of tits in a movie, we're in bad shape. Never mind watching titties might actually be good to them; can't you simply watch over their actions a bit?
"No matter what, you just can't shield your kids in a bubble and think that's all there is to it. Teaching them right and wrong and (god forbid!) paying atention to their actions is what parenting's all about."
Well said.
This is reminiscent of the uproar that got Howard Stern banned from Clearchannel radio stations. Clearchannnel's CEO was livid with moral outrage over Stern's foul remarks. It evidently didn't bother him, however, that his stations were broadcasting commercials for so called "non-profit" credit repair outfits that aim to swindle everything they can from those who can least afford it.
Sometimes I think I must have missed something. I mean, when did it happen that the policing of those who utter four letter words became a priority over stopping con operations? In fact, we evidently don't try to stop them at all, judging by the frequency that Clearchannel continues to broadcast the commercials. What does that teach our children? What puts them at greater risk?
The prudes in this country need to get their priorities staightened out. Let's take care of the real problems first. Once that's done you might be able to justify spending time fighting the use of dirty words. Doing it the other way around it reprehensible.
"Sounds like you could just return stuff giving a fake name to get around that, since Mr Fake Name probably hasn't passed the first threshold and is able to return stuff without ID... no?"
That works as long as you don't use a debit/credit/checking card. There are many advantages to not using cash, not the least of which is the convenience of rarely needing to go by the bank.
"If it bothers you too much after you paid for the merchandise and the alarm goes off and you are stopped by the security people, do this - After they are done searching for those items on your receipt, you tell them that now you would like to return those items as you have no desire to take them home after the embarrassment caused to you."
That might work in a smaller store, but have you ever taken anything back to Walmart? The people who would process the returns could care less!
They also keep every bit of information in their database. Why do you care? For starters there are at least two thresholds you can cross with respect to returns. Pass the first and they won't take anything back from you unless you show ID. Pass another and they will no longer accept returns from you at all.
Aero: "In all cases where I've set an alarm off like this, they've been satisfied with just going through the shopping bag. No insistence of searching my whole person."
Your message is representative of several others.
Once I've been through the checkout line and paid for the merchandise, it is now mine. No one else has any right to rummage through it. If the store doesn't trust the cashiers not to make mistakes, (that's the excuse they use in Walmart), they should deal with the problem at it's source.
They only continue these practices because people believe they have to go along with them, and they tread a fine line legally. Many honest people cooperate because they feel intimidated or don't know they can refuse. But by cooperating, we help perpetuate a demeaning system that should be replaced by something that actually works!
Max writes, "Companies, being fictional entities, don't have the capacity to give a shit. The people that run those companies do but choose not to, since they don't really give a damn whether you or live or die so long as they get a cut of your paycheck while you're still drawing breath."
Max, I'd like to amplify your observations.
It has become the mindset of publically held corporations (which is to say the people who control them) that their only allegience is to the shareholder. Business operations no longer concern themselves with issues of morality, rather the question is what actions best please the shareholders. The welfare of employees and customers is considered only to the extent that analysts believe the business interests--profit--will be thereby enhanced.
This condition has come about because no one feels personally responsible. The corporation, since it only exists as a legal entity, is amoral. As prime directive corporate executives and most managers feel obliged to carry out the wishes of the corporation, which wishes only for more and greater profit. If rules are broken and people are hurt, it's the corporation's fault, not theirs.
Even law carries little weight on it's own within the corporation. If a desired action requires that the laws be broken, the only question is whether the consequences, if there are any, will outweigh the benefits. Everything boils down to the same cost/benefit analysis.
No one talks about these things, but that's the way it is. In the U.S., in Europe. Anywhere you care to look. Sure, there are still a few private companies that haven't lost their sense of right and wrong. Some even remain very successful, but there aren't many left.
What corporations have forgotten is that they ultimately pay for misdeeds comitted in their names, and for that you can blame the western tendency to go for the quick payoff. Short term mentality forgets that what goes around comes around.
There's still a problem even if we decided to only punish those who take the pictures. At what point does a photograph become pornographic? When you find it arousing? When someone else does? A more objective system can be defined, but it leads to questions like:
- What is an acceptable distance that the subjects hands must be from any sexually annotated area of the body?
- What about facial expressions, body language?
- At what point is clothing too tight/ too loose?
A whole industry has grown up around finding ways to circumvent such laws, as may be witnessed by a search for "no-nude" sites on the Internet. Some of the children involved in this niche are undoubtedly abused, others may not be, but that surely will depend on whom you ask.
Rape and other obvious physical abuse of children or adults is obviously a crime and no one needs to be told how to define it. That is not the case for crimes of morality. Laws that attempt to prevent them are bound to fail, and lead to incidents like a mother being arrested for spanking her child in a grocery store. Whose morality would be used as the basis for such laws in the first place?
The only answer is for parents to continue to take responsibility for their children, and for guardians to be appointed for those children who don't have parents. I'm sorry, but I don't think that there's a better solution.
What's to keep the receiving agencies from using this tool to track whomever they like? Sounds to me like they've chosen a name for this project that will make it's deployment very difficult to challenge.
IMHO, use of a tool like this should require probable cause and a warrant from a judge. Would you want the police digging through your personal file cabinet, just to see if there's any information on anything you did that you shouldn't have?
Slashdot Mirror
Buy all of your equipment from major manufacturers and you can hardly go wrong. Get your RF equipment from Rohde & Schwarz, especially high frequency signal generators and spectrum analyzers. Get your scope, meters and logic analyzer from Tektronix. Get most of the rest from Agilent. You will really have to better define the type of work you plan to do, however. For example, if you plan to work with cellular telephone equipment you will need a lot of specialized instruments just for that, but if not most of it would be useless. The cost of specialized equipment is higher than that of more mundane machines.
For planning purposes you might want to make a list of parameters associated with equipment you expect to be working with. For each record the frequencies, bandwidth and other functional parameters required. How many lines on your logic analyzer are you likely to require, and what depth memory? Do you want to have diagnostic and repair equipment or will your lab be devoted exclusively to R&D? Don't answer too quickly, because you may on occasion encounter a malfunctioning reference assembly, for example, and if you can fix it yourself it could save several days compared with sending it out for repair, or starting over with a replacement. When you complete the list it should be fairly easy to see what additional equipment you will need.
If you're unsure what you will need for some or all of it, contact sales people for the companies you plan to buy equipment from. The major companies generally give solid advice, because they would like you to buy from them again in the future. They will come to your location and arrange to demonstrate equipment for you. Of course you will still have to do your homework to evaluate their proposals.
For workbenches you will probably want to get standard height with a shelf running the full width of each and cabinets underneath. Chairs with armrests will be needed, and they should be adjustable height to suit your workbenches. Plan on lots of 48" florescent lights, good metal cabinets for storage and file cabinets for documents and drawings. A computer on each bench is not too many. You might want to look at a decent sized UPS system if it will be important that you keep some or all of the equipment running without interruption.
I think you will find that the sky's the limit when it comes to buying test and measuring equipment. You could easily order so much that you wouldn't have a place to put it all, then never use most of it. IMO there is no substitute for analyzing the work you plan to do, then match it up with the available instrumentation.
My overall advice is to buy what you know you will need before you begin working in your lab. Then you can easily add additional pieces as the need arises.
Good Luck! --NR
If the nanotubes absorb light, wouldn't instruments coated with the material tend to get warmer rather than stay cooler?
NR
Run-away replication has already happened over forty years ago when the Starship Enterprise was overrun with tribbles. All it takes is a great intellect like that of Capt. James T. Kirk to deal with the problem.
What's that? Star Trek was a work of fiction?
That's different.
Never mind.
----NR
I worked on the installation of the telecommunications network for a new airport in Asia several years ago. The airport was built on land that had been a palm oil plantation so there were lots of rats until traps brought the population down. It happened rather frequently that rats would chew through our fibers and it was a major irritant, but the biggest problem they caused was the fact that cobras were attracted by the rats. ----- RN
. . translation. . . I don't read Spanish, but this makes little sense. What good would it do to block Wikileaks to the US? I thought the goal was to keep this material out of the hands of the enemy. RN
Several people have said essentially this. The polygraph can measure your pulse and respiration rates, your blood pressure, your galvanic skin response, and from this data it can determine your pulse and respiration rates, your blood pressure and your galvanic skin response. No machine exists that can detect a lie. If a polygraph test uncovers any information at all it's because the person being tested offered it up. Anyone can "beat" a polygraph test simply by stating that they've told the truth as many times as necessary. A person's behavior during the test might raise concerns about other things, though. NR
If the United States were to stop the senseless, wasteful and ineffective war on drugs, then redirect, say, 50% of that money towards drug education, I dare say drug use would decline dramatically. To that, redirect another 25% of the money to research into more effective educational methods, and within ten years the drug problem would be mostly a thing of the past. Don't scoff! Do you have any idea what we're spending? Are you aware that the majority of prison inmates are doing time for drug violations? That cost of keeping all these people in prisons is by itself a staggering sum. If you then add the cost of worldwide enforcement and interdiction efforts, you're talking about some very serious money.
These answers may not be simplistic, but the only reason they can't be easily attained can be attributed to the conundrum our politicians find themselves in. Most know that the WOD is futile, but to openly suggest an end to it is political suicide, and a few have tested that theory. Drug abuse is one of many political subjects in the US that is legislated by way of emotion, not rationale thought. For this I don't blame politicians, because not all of them fall into that trap, but those they represent usually do, and demand that their politicians do likewise.
I think we need to back up and ask ourselves what what we hope to accomplish with the WOD in the first place. To save people from the misery of drug addiction? Then how is it that we throw violators into prisons? Is living in a prison better than being addicted to a drug? If given the choice between the two, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't select prison. You?
"Wait!", you say. "None of that matters because we have to protect our children. We don't want them to be exposed to drugs, or to become people who use drugs!" That's strong motivation, and I'll be the first to agree with the sentiments. But look again. Are we accomplishing anything of the sort? Definitely not. Every child in the US is exposed to drugs in a variety of venues. Neighborhoods, schools, recreation centers. We keep trying to use force to make it stop, but we've never suceeded. We succeed only in turning them into criminals for seeking substances that human beings have craved for as long as recorded history has existed.
You reply, "The WOD may not be a perfect solution, but at least it keeps the associated crime in check. Without such a program our streets would be overrun by addicts, who would steal on a grand scale otherwise." That's another fallacy to which intelligent reasoning has not been applied. Most of the crime reportedly caused by drug abuse is in fact caused by the WOD itself! Look in your newspaper if you need proof. Few drug-related crimes involve addicts attacking people to get money for drugs. Most involve distributors fighting each other over turf, or one group stealing drugs from another. In short, most of the drug related violence is about money, not the drugs themselves, or the use thereof. The WOD perpetuates these crimes by keeping supply short and prices high. End it and drug related crime would all but go away.
Could it be that this last is the real reason the WOD continues? Could it be that the real power in the US is backing those who are raking in enormous sums of money from the drug trade? Ask yourself who benefits by keeping current policies in place. Not our children. Certainly not the majority of drug users. But if not them, who? Someone tell me, please.
Shouldn't Ebay have to warn their customers when they have an indication that one of their merchants may be a higher risk than others? An email on the subject to Ebay Customer Support was returned with the standard canned, non-sequitar reply. A subsequent complaint elicited two paragraphs of disclaimers and disavowals of all responsibility.
They make it abundantly clear that Ebay's only real concern is their own bottom line. I won't deal with them again.
NR
If you buy a non-HDTV you will get a box that will be obsolete long before it's likely to wear out--soon you won't be able to use it without a converter box. All televisions sold after December 31, 2006 must be sold with digital tuners, and broadcasters are to stop airing analog content Jan 31, 2007. Unless you pay next to nothing for an analog box, it no longer makes sense to buy anything other than HDTV.
e ?AID=/20050515/FEAT0111/505150305/1010/FEAT01_/URL )
Hmmmm. I wonder why the Best Buy salesman didn't mention that to me when I was in his store last week?
For more information on the planned changeover, (See
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl
NR
Hah!
If Apple is still to be tied to proprietary hardware, where's the news? So Intel sells a few more processors. That's nice for them, but doesn't do much for anyone else.
Oh, right. There is the matter of that one guy who can't wait to run Windows on his Apple. Maybe now he'll get his chance. Then again, where would he get hardware drivers?
NR
And what of the poor, abused software companies, who have been robbed of some of the rightful rewards of their efforts? It makes me want to gag. Software is a product that can be "stolen" in this way without costing the manufacturer anything. Nothing! Yet they claim it as "losses"?!
Talk about shameless! I wonder if it's a tax write-off?
You've missed the point. If I write a shareware program and receive no registrations, then complain that I've been cheated out of = $(#downloads * $registration) I've made an invalid assumption. The same is true when software companies count the number of pirated copies of their programs, (however they come up with that!), multiply that number by the retail price and claim that this is the amount of money they've lost to theft of their product.
Exactly. Statistics like these always assume that the "pirates" would be buying the software if they couldn't get free copies. That's a ridiculous assumption.
"No matter what, you just can't shield your kids in a bubble and think that's all there is to it. Teaching them right and wrong and (god forbid!) paying atention to their actions is what parenting's all about."
Well said.
This is reminiscent of the uproar that got Howard Stern banned from Clearchannel radio stations. Clearchannnel's CEO was livid with moral outrage over Stern's foul remarks. It evidently didn't bother him, however, that his stations were broadcasting commercials for so called "non-profit" credit repair outfits that aim to swindle everything they can from those who can least afford it.
Sometimes I think I must have missed something. I mean, when did it happen that the policing of those who utter four letter words became a priority over stopping con operations? In fact, we evidently don't try to stop them at all, judging by the frequency that Clearchannel continues to broadcast the commercials. What does that teach our children? What puts them at greater risk?
The prudes in this country need to get their priorities staightened out. Let's take care of the real problems first. Once that's done you might be able to justify spending time fighting the use of dirty words. Doing it the other way around it reprehensible.
"Sounds like you could just return stuff giving a fake name to get around that, since Mr Fake Name probably hasn't passed the first threshold and is able to return stuff without ID... no?"
That works as long as you don't use a debit/credit/checking card. There are many advantages to not using cash, not the least of which is the convenience of rarely needing to go by the bank.
That might work in a smaller store, but have you ever taken anything back to Walmart? The people who would process the returns could care less!
They also keep every bit of information in their database. Why do you care? For starters there are at least two thresholds you can cross with respect to returns. Pass the first and they won't take anything back from you unless you show ID. Pass another and they will no longer accept returns from you at all.
Your message is representative of several others.
Once I've been through the checkout line and paid for the merchandise, it is now mine. No one else has any right to rummage through it. If the store doesn't trust the cashiers not to make mistakes, (that's the excuse they use in Walmart), they should deal with the problem at it's source.
They only continue these practices because people believe they have to go along with them, and they tread a fine line legally. Many honest people cooperate because they feel intimidated or don't know they can refuse. But by cooperating, we help perpetuate a demeaning system that should be replaced by something that actually works!
Max, I'd like to amplify your observations.
It has become the mindset of publically held corporations (which is to say the people who control them) that their only allegience is to the shareholder. Business operations no longer concern themselves with issues of morality, rather the question is what actions best please the shareholders. The welfare of employees and customers is considered only to the extent that analysts believe the business interests--profit--will be thereby enhanced.
This condition has come about because no one feels personally responsible. The corporation, since it only exists as a legal entity, is amoral. As prime directive corporate executives and most managers feel obliged to carry out the wishes of the corporation, which wishes only for more and greater profit. If rules are broken and people are hurt, it's the corporation's fault, not theirs.
Even law carries little weight on it's own within the corporation. If a desired action requires that the laws be broken, the only question is whether the consequences, if there are any, will outweigh the benefits. Everything boils down to the same cost/benefit analysis.
No one talks about these things, but that's the way it is. In the U.S., in Europe. Anywhere you care to look. Sure, there are still a few private companies that haven't lost their sense of right and wrong. Some even remain very successful, but there aren't many left.
What corporations have forgotten is that they ultimately pay for misdeeds comitted in their names, and for that you can blame the western tendency to go for the quick payoff. Short term mentality forgets that what goes around comes around.
- What is an acceptable distance that the subjects hands must be from any sexually annotated area of the body?
- What about facial expressions, body language?
- At what point is clothing too tight/ too loose?
A whole industry has grown up around finding ways to circumvent such laws, as may be witnessed by a search for "no-nude" sites on the Internet. Some of the children involved in this niche are undoubtedly abused, others may not be, but that surely will depend on whom you ask. Rape and other obvious physical abuse of children or adults is obviously a crime and no one needs to be told how to define it. That is not the case for crimes of morality. Laws that attempt to prevent them are bound to fail, and lead to incidents like a mother being arrested for spanking her child in a grocery store. Whose morality would be used as the basis for such laws in the first place? The only answer is for parents to continue to take responsibility for their children, and for guardians to be appointed for those children who don't have parents. I'm sorry, but I don't think that there's a better solution.
IMHO, use of a tool like this should require probable cause and a warrant from a judge. Would you want the police digging through your personal file cabinet, just to see if there's any information on anything you did that you shouldn't have?
Only if you assume that preservation, not prevention, of privacy was the original goal.