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.

Craftsmanship - Still a Great Need

Craftsman vs Worker -- Caring vs A Job

Perhaps a "Skilled Worker" can do as good a job as a "Craftsman" can in many cases and perhaps the difference between "craftsman" and "worker" and "professional" are all semantics, but I am using them in a particular way for the moment and not really talking dictionary or vocabulary here -- so bear with me.

When my Father was buying his second house -- this one custom made to his specifications -- many issues came up that got me thinking about something. The same thoughts came up when my Sister bought her first car and when my Father bought his next house. When someone is making a major purchase of their lifetime doesn't it make you feel a little uncomfortable that the people working on it might just be considering it "another day's work"? In a factory making cars -- a young person's first car is a pretty important purchase to them of their lifetime -- the car is made by many people just putting in their hours. You here jokes that you don't want a car built on a Monday... or a Friday... because the cars would be substandard since the workers would either be tired from their weekend or not have their minds fully on their jobs.

Perhaps on a mass produced consumer product it "might" be acceptable since you can just take the car back and get any problem remedied. I do find that this is almost a bit too routine. I don't know of anyone who doesn't have to take their new car back for some fairly important work when they first buy it -- things that were wrong from the factory.

I understand that a car has many components and many relatively complicated systems. That means many more things that can go wrong. I think that for some reason it might be easier to do quality control on computers which might be more complex -- so the two really aren't comparable, although some might at first think so. Other products you buy are simpler and even if they do turn out defective you can often return them to exchange for one that is in good condition.

I think that when you are buying something like a house, you are seeking a higher degree of quality because you are making one of those lifetime purchases and you can't just take a house back for another. It is also an imposition to have repairmen coming and going for the months following the purchase of your home... It might be for months as well it seems to me.

The time imposition might seem like the big problem, but an equally large problem is that many of the tradesmen who build things for some reason have no concept of how to work in a home that is finished and furnished. That at least is how it seems to me or they would do simple things like wipe their feet or not wear their grubbiest work boots onto new carpeting. Some just seem not to know how to work where there is finished flooring installed and will do things that will gouge floors and stain and tear carpeting. I have seen construction tools tossed into bathtubs and shower stalls as well -- scratching the enamel and other surfaces. The installers of the flooring and plumbing fixtures aren't responsible for that damage, and even if the tradesmen are willing to pay for any damage they do it means that there are more tradesmen coming in to do repairs and more chance for damage being done -- not to mention loss of privacy and the pleasure to enjoy your home.

I wonder how many new home owners throw up their hands and say "enough" and just stop calling the contractors, subcontractors and tradesmen to call back simply because they are tired of these invasions?

It all comes down to the idea of craftsmanship. I think that the difference between craftsmanship and work is that with craftsmanship the worker takes pride in their work and their reputation as a craftsman is important. Their reputation as someone who does quality work is very important and not just that they will come back to fix anything that goes wrong, but a step further -- that things that it is unusual that anything is wrong with their work or will go wrong. A craftsman will not normally let anything that is defective go out of their shop or anything that is likely to go wrong. There are some products that are delicate and then a reputation as being quick to remedy problems is important. That reputation is important in any case even if it is rarely necessary.

I think that fine furniture was once made by craftsmen and that was what was meant. The furniture would not be going out of the factory if blemished or faulty or damaged. It would be made right in the first place. Now it seems to me that factories turn out products that are more likely to be faulty.

A friend once told me what he thought the solution to "automation" was. He said that instead of simply putting in machines and laying off employees, instead increase the productivity, but train the employees and put them in positions that machines can't do. Put them into positions of craftsmen doing hand detailing and hand work. Put them where the work can produce pride and products of value. Add that to the increased productivity and do more with the same number of employees instead of doing the same amount with fewer.

Perhaps that attitude might lead to a surplus of goods... It might be very naive, but I think there probably is something important there. I do think that we do need to train people for those quality craftsman jobs. I think that there is a need for more people for whom their occupation is not just a job, that they are not just workers, but craftsmen.

Later!
~ Darrell

106.

Grumpy Old Man - On the Buses

Front Seating, Invisible Disabilities, Elderly, Whippersnappers

The intrepid author has witnessed far too often, problems on the transit system when it comes to how the disabled and elderly are treated. The transit staff are not what I am talking about, I find they do a pretty good job and I find that things are constantly improving in regards to services within Metro Vancouver and I would hope in other cities as well. What I am referring to is the regard many citizens have for the seating set aside for people who may be disabled or otherwise have problems standing or walking on a moving bus.

I have watched young people taking up the front seats of the bus which are labelled for disabled or elderly passengers with no regard for those who might need them. The drivers can only do so much for them when the bus is full and they can barely see past the people standing in the aisles. It is okay for able bodied people to use those seats when they aren't needed, but the signs say they must be given up when the area is needed by the disabled, elderly, or when people in wheelchairs or mobility aids are riding on the bus.

I am not sure just what is up with these otherwise clean cut individuals. They just do not seem to care and they act like they are entitled to the seating - they payed their fare, they were there first, they get the seats.

...or that is what I thought until yesterday when after getting off a crowded bus I watched a couple of guys having taken up two of those front seats -- even while people with canes were standing with difficulty on the crowded bus -- literally dancing at the transit exchange.

After the fact I was wondering if they were even enjoying that they had taken up those seats? Perhaps they had other reasons that they were dancing and perhaps they were "ignorant" that they were doing anything wrong in the first place. I still would like to think that.

I realized something on the bus. There are many people with invisible handicaps and if you do see someone not getting up for someone else and giving up their seat -- they might be invisibly handicapped. I am not sure how appropriate it might be to ask someone who looks able if they are and using those seats unless you actually are the person in need of one of those seats... or you are asking for someone in need. When someone is entering the bus in a wheelchair or mobility scooter it is pretty obvious that those front bench seats will need to be folded up. I am not sure but I figure that any reasonable person who is fit would give up another seat for an elderly person who has to give up one of those seats for a wheel chair. But I am a bit steamed over totally fit young people who take up those seats without regard for others who need them.

I also know that often the people who need those "handicapped" seats are also those less likely to speak up and ask for them. They tend not to want to make a fuss and just want to go through life quietly. I know that is a generalization and it comes from anecdotal observational evidence, but it is what I have seen to be the case.

Somehow I think that when they refer to seating for disabled people they don't mean morally disabled or morally handicapped....

Later!
~ Darrell

105.

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.

Liar Liar Chips on Fire!

Frustrations in the 'Tronics Stores

Having a bit of knowledge and being a bit stubborn can be a real eye-opener sometimes. A good friend has related a few incidents he has had at a couple of major electronics chains -- well actually a major electronics chain and a major drug store chain that happens to play department store with an electronics department within itself.

He has gone in to purchase particular items that have been advertised online or in their flyers and has been frustrated by both sales people and managers alike. The frustration has not been so much on whether they had the item in question, but rather that they are lying.

Now granted my friend has some specific needs. he is running a now becoming vintage computer system -- Windows 98 -- and some current hardware simply won't work with it. There is hardware that does still work for it, but you have to do your research and know which brands and models work. Then there is further research to find which chains carry it and which specific stores have it in stock.

Herein lays the problem. You do the research, even to finding that the store in question has it in stock and you go in to the store and ask for the product and are told lies. Not always of course -- but too often. You might be told, "We have never had that product in stock, but you would be perfectly happy with this other one." where the other one will not work on your system, having checked and sometimes even tested. Pushing a bit further my friend encouraged the sales person enough to go check "the computer" to see if they had it and in stock. He said he would and walked off -- not knowing my friend was following. He went passed the computer and chatted with some other staff a while and came back to say that he had checked but it wasn't in stock. My friend being stubborn had gone to the public access terminal they have in the store and accessed the very page that showed that the item was sold in that chain and in fact was in stock in that store and even that it was on sale price that week. The sales person was not amused, he stuck with his claim that he had checked the "store's computer" and it said there was none in stock. A claim that might perhaps hold water if he had actually gone to any computer at all to even pretend to check.

It might be simple to just go to another store and to business there, except for some items, other stores might not actually carry them because they actually are hard to find.

Another case, which I find is very typical in computer stores is the answer -- "Oh another store carried them? That must have been obsolete stock being cleared out." Again looking for harder to find items, in this case an item one fellow bought at one store in a chain being asked for in another. The claim is that the item is no longer being made and hasn't been for quite a while. Now the factory is still making them and in fact what is being looked for is the current model and also that was what was bought at the other store. The item is also on the online catalogue for the chain.

I think that many assume they can get away with that lie because computers change so quickly and things do become obsolete. But it is wrong to use it as a crutch for being too lazy to look into something.

I tell my friend that he really has to look into upgrading his software. Ten years is an eternity in computer terms and Windows 98 will be supported less and less. He tells me that some of the software he depends on might not be supported and that some of it he won't be able to reinstall if any upgrade goes funny with the system. Some companies go out of business, other special offers no longer exist.

Still, the thing is we should not be lied to. If the store has stopped stocking that item for lack of sales, then they should say so. If they do not know an answer they should say so -- better would be to say so and seek the answer.

...and if they do not stock an item at the moment, and the customer is willing to pay -- in advance -- why not order it in for them?

But it is that false salesmanship that says "the salesman must always appear to know all" and lie to do it that I don't get. I figure a good salesman will tell you when he has to get the information and he will stick to his word and get it or tell you why he can't. A good salesman will stick to his word and it will be honest.

When you know a bit about the product, those lies stick out like a sore thumb.

Later!
~ Darrell

93.