Grumpy Old Man -- Drinking Problems

More Than DUI or Alcoholism

There is more to a "Drinking Problem" than driving drunk or under the influence; or issues of alcoholism to my mind — or at least not what I think people might traditionally consider.

Now I am not 100% prudish. If someone were to take a "nip" from a flask on public transit during rush hour or at a sporting event I'd look the other way — especially if they did so discretely and they were not bothering others. You must of course remember that for the most part here in Canada, drinking in public is frowned on. Meaning you aren't really allowed to drink in public unless at a licensed establishment. Of course, now many stadiums do sell alcohol, however they frown — legally — on BYOB¹. Public drunkenness is right out!

Getting back to public transit... I had the pleasure — displeasure — of sharing my bus-ride with two "gentlemen" who were travelling home from some job or practical job training which involved scaling poles or trees. They had their climbing belts and gear with them. That included rather nasty hammers, spikes, and husky ropes. I noted later that it also included some "belts". The one fellow really reminded me of my upstairs neighbour who more often than not would spend his recreational time "boozed up". It was only a short while later where I realized the resemblance -- though I admit I could be wrong and greatly biased. Here too was a man who drank whenever he was not working or at least he drank at any time he could do so. This included the time he might be commuting on the bus. I am going to assume that didn't include the time commuting to work as he likely had to be somewhat sober for work.

Granted he needn't be staggering drunk, but drunk enough that anyone around would note it and many would find themselves uncomfortable around him. His travelling partner, another fellow pole climber — who probably also worked very hard at work — was snorting back a few on the bus with him. The two of them weren't making a huge scene, but — and here is where the "drinking problems I am referring to come into play — were making the young woman (24-25) and young man (14-16) sitting by them very uncomfortable. The young man nearly jumped out of his skin when the empty "mickey²" flew past him to land on the shelf at the back of the bus.

Perhaps the high school student and the young college student should not have been upset by two hard drinking, hard working men enjoying their leisure time in their company... but we aren't talking about a pub or bar, nor even a restaurant or BBQ. We are talking about public transit just at the beginning of the rush hour. Somehow I think that people should be able to take advantage of public transit without being forced to face hard drinking.

The drinking problem is people being made uncomfortable... if I seem out of line consider this. The two men are incapable of restraining themselves from drinking for their trip home -- or even the 20 minutes the bus ride lasts. Twenty minutes is the entire duration of that bus route from start to finish. Perhaps they had had to endure a previous bus ride, but even so... if they could not wait to start drinking until the got where they were getting to, it shows that even sober they had issues of controlling their actions. These also were men carrying piked hammers and hatchets in addition to climbing spurs and ropes. They were rough looking customers who I think would take more than equal numbers of police to subdue if it ever came down to it.

So we have two fellows who "might" have problems controlling their impulses when sober, drinking on the bus while armed.

I think that this is in reality a "drinking problem" and not meaning their drinking problem but that of everyone around them.

I still haven't mentioned them talking about how they always liked to have a bottle in their pocket. That was in case someone came up behind them, so that they would always have something they could hit them across the face with, and how they never liked people who approached them from behind or who might talk behind their back... and when I heard them talking about it, I got the impression that people might pick fights with them half-way regularly. I wondered if their actions brought any of this onto themselves?

But that is the "Drinking Problem" I am referring to... that of making everyone around them uncomfortable without regard.

For that matter — yours truly even felt uncomfortable around them, not knowing what they might do — or not do — and I am not a small person.

Later!
~ Darrell

157.

__________
¹ BYOB -- Bring Your Own Bottle.

² A 375-ml (13.2 imperial fluid oz - 12.7 US fl oz) bottle of liquor such as whiskey.

Tunnel Vision - Even Blinder

In a Hoodie -- Tunnel Vision -- Hiding in a Mobile Cave

You see them all over, mostly worn by young people, though often too by people who are acting young or at least acting like they have little responsibility. The hooded sweatshirt is a very functional garment which can keep you cozy on a coolish evening or dampish day. The hood could be worn up or down and could be worn over other clothes or under them for a very functional layered outfit.

Working you can peel off a layer at a time while you get hot through strenuous work and then don again when you stop and start to cool down. I think they are great to wear under rain gear and I see many workers with the hoods up under their hardhats. The Hoodie¹ can be practical. (image to right - image from Wikipedia)¹

But... I see so many young people on warm clear days wearing them with the hoods up. I am fairly sure it isn't to protect from the UV light from the Sun for they wear the hoods indoors in malls as well... I wonder if they wear the hoods up in class too?

Perhaps the hoods might be keeping the wearer warm, but I gather for a large part it is a matter of being at least slightly incognito.

Perhaps not all who wear hoodies are hoods looking for trouble, but a lot of people looking for trouble like the hoodie and baseball cap combination to hide their identity from security cameras and witnesses if they are doing not so legal things -- like: shop lifting, "tagging", trespassing, loitering, lighting illegal fireworks, and many other things.

Three and a half years ago a shopping centre in Kent in the UK "outlawed" "hooded tops" along with baseball caps and swearing at  Bluewater shopping centre.² They had a zero-tolerance approach. The ban was not appreciated of course by some and applauded by others such as Tony Blair and John Prescott.

(image of young people in hooded sweatshirts with baseball caps from BBC News)²

I'm not sure about the banning of apparel like that. For the most part kids are just following their roll models. When I went from Elementary School to Junior High School (from grade 6 into grade 7 -- 12-years-old to 13-years-old) there was something new... a dress code. In public school in Alberta we don't have uniforms, but there were some regulations in Jr High. One of the things I remember was that there was a ban on jeans! Well actually the year I started Jr High they relaxed things and they allowed jeans as long as they didn't have rivets. That was a relief because almost all my pants were actually work pants that were jeans. They were green, but they were jeans.

Now they said the issue was with the rivets hurting the desks, but I didn't quite buy that. Another rule was that girls were not allowed to wear pants (slacks) in school. That didn't directly effect me except I found it a bit embarrassing in winter. That was because nearly all the girls would be switching out of the pants they had worn through the snow and  subzero temperature on the way to school in the hallways in front of the lockers. Thirteen-year-old boys could be easily embarrassed. The rules seem very silly now...

Now the rules tend to be more towards modesty and keeping the clothes modestly decent.

I think that I could understand rules about wearing hoods and hats in school... but I am old school and when I was young it was considered improper for men to wear hats indoors so it still feels odd for me to wear a hat indoors.

Still... I look at the people wearing the hoods and it seems a bit like those glasses that are so popular that I wrote about recently in "The Gnomestead Stump: Blinders - To See or Not to See"³. The hoods like those glasses with the wide temples cut down the peripheral vision so that a person can mostly only see what is straight forward. (image to right - image from iOffer)

Like I said there -- perhaps some people just need a way to focus on the world in front of them, like the "...sidewalk ahead with fewer distractions. just like the draft horses of the past..."³

Later!
~ Darrell

140

__________
¹ "Hoodie" Wikipedia

² "Mall bans shoppers' hooded tops" May 14, 2005 BBC News - South East news: Week in review

³ "Blinders - To See or Not to See" Darrell Wade Penner Sept 6, 2008 The Gnomestead Stump.

Function Creep - Set Tasers on Stun!

Good Ideas That Can Go Bad

When I first took martial arts -- traditional Kung-fu -- one of the earliest pieces of information I recall is that it is very difficult to try to incapacitate a person by hitting them and trying to "knock them out" without actually endangering their life. The discussion about this got on to things like gas grenades and shooting to wound as well. Even breaking limbs has dangers though there are pressure points that can render a person incapacitated in many situations. Grappling and binding is probably the best option... that is if negotiation and discussion fail of course.

It made sense to me. But something that seemed a bit irrational was hearing that while most police -- while they had mandatory fire arms re-testing and practised regularly on the firing range -- were not constantly practising and upgrading their hand-to-hand skills. Those are the skills that would allow them to subdue a felon without resorting to baton or gun or...

Well the Taser (image to right -- image from TASER International) had just come onto the scene -- or at least into the public eye -- with first the cattle-prod sort and then with the stun-gun sort which fires wires. It sounded like a great idea -- a way to incapacitate a violent and out of control subject in a way with little danger to the subject or the person trying to subdue them. There were some risks to the target, but less than being pummelled with a billy club or being kicked or punched and definitely less than being shot. (I guess they smile in fire arms catalogues and gun magazines too...)

The Tasers were only supposed to be used in special situations. At that time there were groups who said that gradually they would be used in more and more situations until they began to replace negotiation or hand-to-hand subduing of the subject. Because the Taser was "nonlethal force" law enforcement officers would be more likely to use it because no permanent damage would be done. (My own opinion) (image to the left from TASER InternationaLaw Enforcement Overview)

Still there are dangers and there are many circumstances where the targets have health issues that compromise them for being safely Tasered -- or at least I am lead to believe that chronic use of a number of drugs can lead to cardiac issues and a good jolt could be bad or fatal.

I wonder if I were to be hypoglycemic and irrational, whether I might be at risk? It would be one condition under which I might find myself facing law enforcement officers while not in my right mind. My own heart is strong, but many diabetics have heart conditions.

I can see that there are many areas that the Tasers are very usefully important. (image to the right US military version, the M-26 Taser - from Wikipedia) But I think that there needs to be constant diligence in training with them -- not just firing range sorts of point and shoot or "here is what it feels like to get hit". I think that there needs to be constant training and upgrading which includes hand-to-hand, Taser, and firearms along side negotiation. Also other new weapons that might come down the line.

I can well imagine the military having valid use for these sorts of "nonlethal" weapons.

There are other "nonlethal" weapons coming down the pipe. The Tera Hertz frequency Active Denial weapons are one of them which can create a burning sensation that leaves little or no mark on the target, but few if any can stand for more than a few seconds. Vehicle mounted ones are in operation (image to left - image from Wikipedia) and more portable ones are coming as new technology allows. (image to right - image from Wikipedia) This might be a very important tool -- but what happens if it might be used for something other than the "crowd control" and keeping terrorists away from sensitive areas? There is potential for using it as a torture device. This is not something I came up with but rather something that the same people who worried about abuse with the Taser came up with.

The safety of the ADS (Active Denial System) has been stated with regards to people not being able to stay within the active beam of the device for longer than a second or two. It only penetrates to 0.4 mm (1/64 of an inch) -- a depth at which nerve endings are located. This is because of the 95 GHz frequency chosen which is absorbed greatly by water and hence can't penetrate deeper. Little mention is of the effect on a subject who cannot flee the effect of the ADS or the effect of the 95 GHz radiation on the cornea or other thin tissues of the body.

I am sure in the case where the ADS is used as it is intended the argument can be made that the person should not be there and the ADS is less dangerous than other means. But, what if it starts to be used in broader ranges and scopes of purpose? What about dispersing crowds at sporting events? What if people do not disperse quite as quickly as Law Enforcement prefer from the scene of an accident or fire? Someone who is a bit of a radical mentions the scenario of police using them for raids where the ADS is used to chase the targets out of a residence to take them into custody. This would use other Tera Hertz tools to locate the targets in the building as well.

What of privacy...

There are THz scanners that essentially can see through anything other than flesh and metal. So that you would stand before them only covered by the zipper on your trousers and change in your pockets... and keys, jewellery, buckles.... but you would be bald er than the day you were born in the image and though in black and white, not looking like an X-ray photo. (image to left - image from BBC News) Now such scanning is optional to avoid longer hand pat downs... also invasive. (image to right - image from BBC News) But perhaps they might be required in more and more places and if you don't submit... well if you are law abiding, what do you have to hide? (image to left - image from Italy Magazine Forums)

I believe the two images are actually using X-ray back scatter technique and do not show quite as graphic detail as the actual T-ray units would show. I also believe that there has been a bit of airbrushing to reduce embarrassment. Somehow I wonder if there are reasons why it is harder to find images of the actual images from the T-ray units? I can only speculate.

Another technology is that of the tracking chip. People might know about the RFD tracking chips that have been implanted beneath the skin of pets for a number of years. They are also used for keeping track of wild animals like crocodiles in Florida or sharks or other animals. You catch an animal or get close to it and swipe a wand over it and record the number of its implanted chip via radio signal generated when the wand passes by and you can then look up information on that animal and record information such as where you swiped it.

The same would happen for people. It could be used as a form of ID. Your ID information would be encoded on the chip -- or at least a code number that could be accessed from a database on a network -- and read with an appropriate device. I believe there have been some trials with people using such implanted chips for Charge Cards and for security in their home and office.

RFD tracking chip from VeriChip. (image to right - image from BBC News)

It is an interesting idea, but... it might be used in more and more situations until people will nearly insist that you use it to use certain facilities. Consider how hard it can be to function without a credit card or a bank debit card. Consider that readers could be easily mounted at entrances to all banks, subway station entrances, airports, or anyplace sensitive. You could be tracked as easily as they can track where you make credit card purchases or cell phone calls... easier in fact.

What if someone has a scanner and gets your code? Can't they code a chip and simply have it on their person and then be treated as if they were you?

If you won't get a chip implanted... why not? Do you have something to hide?

I guess the same goes for surveillance cameras. How they are used and who gets access to them makes a big difference. How the regulation on who gets to change the rules on who gets to access them is just as important. I can understand the concept that the cameras are placed to look at places where you might be seen by a casual passerby. So what you do could be seen by a police officer who is not in uniform as well as that security camera. But it could get a bit creepy if access might be granted to folk you might not think should gain access.

I am not sure I would want a chip implanted... I don't mind the downtown video surveillance cameras or the ones in public places like malls and universities.... Tasers are okay if they actually start training the officers with them... I think there need to be some sort of safe guards before things like the ADS are used outside of war zones. I know of a few other "nonlethal" systems as well...

...what about the stuff we don't know about? Sometimes you have to worry about who they are using for watchdogs on the new technologies or what directions current technologies are taking.

Personally I am not against all of this technology, I am just pointing out the potential of sliding down some very slippery slopes with it.

Later!
~ Darrell

116.

The Highest Form of Flattery It Is Not

Imitation -- Not Copying -- Is The Highest Form of Flattery!

While I do not care for people infringing on people's copyright by using their images, text or other material without permission -- doing so without crediting the artist is worse. Copying the work and then claiming it as your own work is an even greater crime and truly theft!

Copying an image and not attributing it to the artist of the work in a sense might be -- by omission -- implying perhaps that you have rights to it or that you are the creator -- depending on how known the artist is. By not connecting the work to the creator whether artist or author, you also are stripping away the identity of that artist and making it nearly impossible for anyone to find other work by that artist.

In the past I have discovered some of my writing and artwork where someone has claimed it as their own. While it is flattering, it also gives me a bit of a creepy feeling.

Imitation might be the highest form of flattery, but imitation implies that someone has done some work. It is doing something in your style or in the manner that you are doing it -- not taking your work as their own.

With some forms of work the dividing line between style and complete content might not be so concrete as in others, but I think most can tell if they look at the work behind the original.

I am lucky that I am a bit of a detective. I can search out an artist who created an image I found on the Internet where no direct indication of their identity has been left with the image. Perhaps I am just a bit compulsive in my searching and willing to spend some time searching through a few hundred images. I am also a bit skilled in finding the proper keywords for a search to find what I am looking for. Sometimes I will search for things associated with my target to find better keywords and clues. Perhaps I am a bit obsessive with that too.

I can often succeed in my searches and make my findings known where possible to undo some of that damage if I can.

So if for some reason you are creating a collection of images or "whatever" remember to also record who created the item and where you found it... when is sometimes important too. Perhaps my hanging around Museum and Archaeology types is showing?

Later!
~ Darrell

103.

Punishment & Crime

Should the Punishment Sometimes Outweigh the Crime?

There are crimes for which the punishment seems to be unusually severe. Or at least I think the punishment should seem overly severe to many people. The example I am going to give is that of pulling a false fire alarm in an apartment building. It sounds like it could be a harmless enough prank - a nuisance, something that might disturb people's dinner or TV watching - or perhaps which might wake them from a peaceful night's sleep or other nightly pursuit.

So if caught you think perhaps they shouldn't get too severe a sentence or punishment - enough to make them think twice about doing it again for sure, but not something that would put them out a great deal financially or put them behind bars. But consider this - how easy is it to catch such a prankster and what is the true danger they are causing to society? It is not easy to catch one of these false alarm pullers because unless you actually are there to see them pull the alarm it is hard to prove they did it. They won't pull it if they think there is a chance of getting caught for one thing, and even then, they could claim to have smelled smoke.

Of course then there is the endangerment. I am not talking about the chance of a person tripping or falling in the staircase - for you aren't supposed to use the elevators in a fire - nor the danger of vacant suites being burgled, though there is that danger - but with each successive false alarm fewer and fewer people will take the alarm seriously. Each time the fire department has to muster out to the apartment there could be some legitimate fire that they could be delayed in getting to.

How does one put a value on that sort of endangerment?

So I feel that even though a severe punishment might seem out of proportion to the prank of pulling a fire alarm in a false alarm, it must serve as a deterrent to others. It must also be widely known that there is risk of such a penalty and not a slap on the wrist because it is hard to catch the prankster.

True it would be harsh on the person caught. But if they know in advance of the price they might have to pay, then is it so harsh? What if someone dies in a fire because they ignored an alarm until the smoke detectors started screaming as well.

I think there are other crimes like this. But shouldn't such crimes be known and the punishements be known? Right now, they are starting to try to make drinking and driving known as such - dangerous driving and racing as well - but I think that many seem to be getting their wrists slapped and so people are not treating these crimes as seriously as perhaps they should.

Later,
~ Darrell