Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What hasn't been discussed in this thread is that we are already well down the road to this technology. The professor of robotics at Reading Uni has several chips implanted by way of experiment that allow him to enter through security doors simply by reading the chip.

Newly issued UK passports use biometrics I believe. I don't think the day is far away whereby passports, driving licenses, ID cards etc are implanted chips rather than conventional items as they are now. The tech certainly exists.

Bakerofish wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You're assuming one has to do one or the other. This is false and nonsensical. We try to prevent as much as possible, but we always have the police to go after an event has occurred. I'm talking rescue. If little bobbie gets snatched the police have the capacity to kick on the old tracker within a few minutes BG is going to get tracked.

the mere fact that bobbie gets kidnapped in the first place means that something already went wrong and wont stop whoever did it to do what they want to do in the first place.

not all crimes take time

sometimes its just five minutes or less

how often do you check the tracker?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:This all very interesting, but what is the mortality rate from brain surgery in infants?

it doesnt go in the brain

chips go in the arm or behind the knee(?) its like getting a shot.

So, we don't need that whole police force and justice system thing, just prevention. Got it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:What hasn't been discussed in this thread is that we are already well down the road to this technology. The professor of robotics at Reading Uni has several chips implanted by way of experiment that allow him to enter through security doors simply by reading the chip.

Newly issued UK passports use biometrics I believe. I don't think the day is far away whereby passports, driving licenses, ID cards etc are implanted chips rather than conventional items as they are now. The tech certainly exists.

Team Weinie is fully chippetized in case Dachshundskrieg starts up without proper command and control.

Frazzled wrote:So, we don't need that whole police force and justice system thing, just prevention. Got it.

and the chewbacca defense begins

try again sir.

bakeroffish wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:This all very interesting, but what is the mortality rate from brain surgery in infants?

it doesnt go in the brain

chips go in the arm or behind the knee(?) its like getting a shot.

Bakerofish wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So, we don't need that whole police force and justice system thing, just prevention. Got it.

and the chewbacca defense begins

try again sir.

Ancient Budha ask what would Chewie look like with a mohawk?

Didn't asnwer the question though. Everything you state is talking about prevention. Kidnapping of children and teenagers occurs. you can harp all you want about 'prevention' but a method where a kidnapped minor could be instantly tracked is could indeed quickly resolve that kdinapping.

daedalus wrote:
Well, that's just stupid. I have a hacksaw that says that these are no problem.

As far as "in the brain" goes, between infant mortality, the effect of that kind of RF emmission IN THE BRAIN (FFS) at such a young developmental state, I'm not even going to beat my standard issue "OMG privacy concern" drum.

yeah the hacksaw solution is one the reasons this isnt any more popular

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2002/10/55999

but folks have talked about implanting it behind the jaw as well. but then theres how the signal affects the brain over time.

Frazzled wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So, we don't need that whole police force and justice system thing, just prevention. Got it.

and the chewbacca defense begins

try again sir.

Ancient Budha ask what would Chewie look like with a mohawk?

Didn't asnwer the question though. Everything you state is talking about prevention. Kidnapping of children and teenagers occurs. you can harp all you want about 'prevention' but a method where a kidnapped minor could be instantly tracked is could indeed quickly resolve that kdinapping.

We'll see about that!

Frazzled wrote:
Didn't asnwer the question though. Everything you state is talking about prevention. Kidnapping of children and teenagers occurs. you can harp all you want about 'prevention' but a method where a kidnapped minor could be instantly tracked is could indeed quickly resolve that kdinapping.

yeah i agree

could

or just force folks to act quicker. and again, how often does one check the tracker?

like i said it doesnt always have to take much time.

and you yourself talked about how easy it is to circumvent.

dont put words in my mouth to make your argument prettier this is not a contest.

I'm going to come right out front and say that in all of my examples (unless otherwise noted), I'm talking about a 6 year old child. If you want to argue that teenagers can make good decisions, then we're in the realm of line drawing, and there's just too much variation in opinions and development to draw a blanket bright line.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:First, I worded that badly. Why should you have the right to control her body? That you are her father is simply an accident of birth. You didn't have to pass any test beyond the physical.

Because someone has to, and it's either me or the collective 'us.' And I don't think the collective 'us' has her best interests at heart.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Second, what's special about abortion?

The fact that it's a medical procedure that doesn't require parental consent. Every major surgery does, but abortion escapes this logic. I'm not exactly sure why.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:1. Adults are also pretty terrible at making rational decisions. What children lack is a knowledge base, not the ability to reason.

I must not have been clear. I agree that kids make rational decisions. They also tend to make bad decisions, that in some cases may be life threatening. I like to think that I'm better at those major decisions than my inexperienced children.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:2. You learn to make decisions by making decisions. You aren't exactly preparing a child for the world of adult life by making all their decisions for them and then chucking them into the deep end.

I don't make all of my child's decisions, but I make the big ones. Going to a friend's house to shoot cocaine? I don't think so sweetie. How about an apple and you finish your homework.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:3. Why should it be the parents who have authority? Please don't say that it's because they do, because the reason that they do is that traditionally you owned your children (and wife). I'd hope that we'd have gotten past that.

I don't know if I should take this seriously or not.

But just for playing along: it's because someone has to have the authority to make decisions for children. Decisions like "should I drive the car to the grocery store," "should I go to school" or "should I eat that piece of dog poop."

Taking our prime example of a 6 year old child, I think that: 1) no, he shouldn't drive the car; 2) yes, he should go to school; and 3) no, you should not eat the dog poop. What he thinks about these things is immaterial.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I would consider raising your child to believe wholeheartedly that blacks and muslims are evil people to be child abuse. I would consider homeschooling your child and raising them to only look to the bible for answers about anything in life to be child abuse. I would consider tattooing your child to be child abuse. I don't think that those would fit under physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment. Therefore that definition is inadequate.

Then there's really nothing to discuss. Your definition is a tyrannical set of arbitrary rules that don't share a basic common foundation. This isn't a good or workable definition.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Much like porn, it's hard to pin down a definition, but I know it when I see it.

There's a reason this was in a concurrance, and not the majority opinion in the case you're referring to.

Bakerofish wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Didn't asnwer the question though. Everything you state is talking about prevention. Kidnapping of children and teenagers occurs. you can harp all you want about 'prevention' but a method where a kidnapped minor could be instantly tracked is could indeed quickly resolve that kdinapping.

yeah i agree

could

or just force folks to act quicker. and again, how often does one check the tracker?

like i said it doesnt always have to take much time.

and you yourself talked about how easy it is to circumvent.

dont put words in my mouth to make your argument prettier this is not a contest.

everything's a contest Jr. Its a zero sum game world and if you win 15 intranetz you get a free cookie.

Don't most teenagers already have a chip on their shoulder?

biccat wrote:
Then there's really nothing to discuss. Your definition is a tyrannical set of arbitrary rules that don't share a basic common foundation. This isn't a good or workable definition.

They don't? It appears to me as though they do (hint: the common theme is permanent manipulation where none is necessary, at least given common understandings of necessity). I think that real issue is your inability to bring diverse concepts into agreement.

Frazzled wrote:everything's a contest Jr. Its a zero sum game world and if you win 15 intranetz you get a free cookie.

thats an expensive cookie

samusaran253 wrote:There's not a higher teen pregnancy rate now than before. It's just now that we have the internet and social media, we know more about it than we did in say, the middle ages or even the 70s and 80s.

Maybe you can, but I guarantee you that if you did, you would probably throw up and/or cringe and never be able to think clearly again.

Look kid, I know it's cool to think so, but as a great philosopher once said: "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Sorry, but for every kid like you, there are a few thousand more. And most of them are going to grow up and have dead end jobs. A few will an hero out early, a few may even put their stupid teen years behind them and make something of themselves. But it's the well-adjusted kids, the preps, the jocks, and even the computer nerds, who are going to be the ones you're taking orders from.

I've gazed long into the abyss of the internet. It's got nothing on real life.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Don't most teenagers already have a chip on their shoulder?

/thread. Chibi is the clear and obvious winner here. End of story.

Right now I'm kind of pissed off, I spent all day doing school work, watching 28 Days Later, and posting on forums. I didn't even get to fap. DAMNIT!

heres a little randomizer to the argument

which would you rather put a chip on:

a convicted felon or a kid?

both methods are about as effective at preventing and solving crimes (not a lot) but the convict route is cheaper.

dogma wrote:They don't? It appears to me as though they do (hint: the common theme is permanent manipulation where none is necessary, at least given common understandings of necessity). I think that real issue is your inability to bring diverse concepts into agreement.

Stringing a lot of words together in a given order may be sufficient to construct a sentence, but it fails to make a legitimate argument.

Obviously you missed this part of the quoted post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Much like porn, it's hard to pin down a definition, but I know it when I see it.

If your definition is "I know it when i see it," then it's not a concrete tenet.

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:2. You learn to make decisions by making decisions. You aren't exactly preparing a child for the world of adult life by making all their decisions for them and then chucking them into the deep end.

I don't make all of my child's decisions, but I make the big ones. Going to a friend's house to shoot cocaine? I don't think so sweetie. How about an apple and you finish your homework.

Okay.

If your daughter isn't hungry, should you be allowed to force food down her throat and make her swallow?

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:3. Why should it be the parents who have authority? Please don't say that it's because they do, because the reason that they do is that traditionally you owned your children (and wife). I'd hope that we'd have gotten past that.

I don't know if I should take this seriously or not.

But just for playing along: it's because someone has to have the authority to make decisions for children. Decisions like "should I drive the car to the grocery store," "should I go to school" or "should I eat that piece of dog poop."

Taking our prime example of a 6 year old child, I think that: 1) no, he shouldn't drive the car; 2) yes, he should go to school; and 3) no, you should not eat the dog poop. What he thinks about these things is immaterial.

You weren't playing along at all! You just said that someone has to make the decisions and assumed that i would then say "Well yes of course it should be you", when what I was asking was why it should be you instead of somebody else. IIRC, you said above that it's either you or the collective. I say nay to that false dilemma.

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I would consider raising your child to believe wholeheartedly that blacks and muslims are evil people to be child abuse. I would consider homeschooling your child and raising them to only look to the bible for answers about anything in life to be child abuse. I would consider tattooing your child to be child abuse. I don't think that those would fit under physical, emotional, or sexual mistreatment. Therefore that definition is inadequate.

Then there's really nothing to discuss. Your definition is a tyrannical set of arbitrary rules that don't share a basic common foundation. This isn't a good or workable definition.

...That isn't a definition at all. Those are examples of things that I would classify as child abuse that you would, presumably, not, because they are not "physical, mental, or emotional harm". I am saying there that your definition is inadequate because it doesn't cover enough ground to be useful.

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Much like porn, it's hard to pin down a definition, but I know it when I see it.

There's a reason this was in a concurrance, and not the majority opinion in the case you're referring to.

I'm sure there was.

Nevertheless, the same logic applies. It is extremely difficult to come up with a loophole free definition of porn, as it is to come up with one for child abuse.

biccat wrote: But it's the well-adjusted kids, the preps, the jocks, and even the computer nerds, who are going to be the ones you're taking orders from.

Right, let's turn all the high school tropes into a litany; it makes explanation so much easier.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:They don't? It appears to me as though they do (hint: the common theme is permanent manipulation where none is necessary, at least given common understandings of necessity). I think that real issue is your inability to bring diverse concepts into agreement.

Stringing a lot of words together in a given order may be sufficient to construct a sentence, but it fails to make a legitimate argument.

Obviously you missed this part of the quoted post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Much like porn, it's hard to pin down a definition, but I know it when I see it.

If your definition is "I know it when i see it," then it's not a concrete tenet.

Exactly, porn is different to other people. What I consider pornography most people would consider extreme violence.

I wonder how religious people would take it if someone decided to require chips implanted into newborns? The whole "According to the Scriptures, the "mark of the beast" is received on the right hand or forehead" would surely come up wouldn't it?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Don't most teenagers already have a chip on their shoulder?

And more knowledgeable than all the previous billions of humanity put together.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:They don't? It appears to me as though they do (hint: the common theme is permanent manipulation where none is necessary, at least given common understandings of necessity). I think that real issue is your inability to bring diverse concepts into agreement.

Stringing a lot of words together in a given order may be sufficient to construct a sentence, but it fails to make a legitimate argument.

Obviously you missed this part of the quoted post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Much like porn, it's hard to pin down a definition, but I know it when I see it.

If your definition is "I know it when i see it," then it's not a concrete tenet.

biccat wrote:

samusaran253 wrote:There's not a higher teen pregnancy rate now than before. It's just now that we have the internet and social media, we know more about it than we did in say, the middle ages or even the 70s and 80s.

Maybe you can, but I guarantee you that if you did, you would probably throw up and/or cringe and never be able to think clearly again.

Look kid, I know it's cool to think so, but as a great philosopher once said: "You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Sorry, but for every kid like you, there are a few thousand more. And most of them are going to grow up and have dead end jobs. A few will an hero out early, a few may even put their stupid teen years behind them and make something of themselves. But it's the well-adjusted kids, the preps, the jocks, and even the computer nerds, who are going to be the ones you're taking orders from.

I've gazed long into the abyss of the internet. It's got nothing on real life.

Ho your CynicismFu is great! You must work for a living.

Do you know what is the #1 thing to teach teenage girls to prevent kidnapping. Kick him in the nuts. Hard. Repeatedly. This will work 100 times better than any chip.

Bakerofish wrote:heres a little randomizer to the argument

which would you rather put a chip on:

a convicted felon or a kid?

both methods are about as effective at preventing and solving crimes (not a lot) but the convict route is cheaper.

Can't we just skip the middle man and drop the felon in a hole?

dogma wrote:

samusaran253 wrote: It's a slippery slope.

No it isn't. Slippery slopes aren't real things.

They are quite real, they are a logical fallacy as well, but in most cases the world has little to nothing to do with logic.

Requia wrote:
They are quite real, they are a logical fallacy as well, but in most cases the world has little to nothing to do with logic.

No, that's nonsense as well.

Decision X never causes decision Y, let alone decision 4.