Thought some of you might be interested in something I posted earlier: The Gun As Blogject. It includes some links for those who aren’t familiar with the terms. Even includes a link back to this forum.
Thoughts on how far this kind of tech will penetrate?
It reminds me of how people were talking about customized advertising a few years ago. Such as, street ads picking up a signal from your cel phone, and then changing to an ad customized to your certain market group. Or, digital radio having multiple streams of ads customized to be most effective on certain markets.
I think that, in marketing situations, this kind of technology will be everywhere in the US as soon as someone wants to put up the cash. As for safety uses in guns, it would probably only be as widespread as the military and police using them.
Refelcting on your RedTag, it seems like there are infinite uses for this technology in emergency situations (hurricanes?). How helpful for rescuers to know real time where people are reporting rising waters or gas leaks or other hazards and dangers.
I had an idea for something similar, albeit more crude. These would strictly be for police issue, those who are supposed to uphold the letter of the law.
My idea is that there would be some tech that takes snapshots down the barrel of officers gun when fired, so we can see what they saw when they pulled the trigger. Or short clip that starts when their finger hits the guard or when they shadow the trigger. Of course it would be recorded remotely to be reviewed by a board but I think it would be a step in making some citizens feel safer around some of our more “trigger happy” officers and could make them more accountable for their decisions. It could also help if the officers weapon was stolen and used, each guns activity is linked to a specific officer and it’s all trackable.
I’m surprised that so many of them have such resistance to any monitoring of their activities when they are supposed to be acting to the letter of the law, unless of course they know they’re up to no good. I remember the resistance when they first started putting the cameras in the squad cars. Forget about trying any of the tech for guns in general, criminals will find ways around it. But our law enforcers should definitely be held accountable for their actions/ monitored and shouldn’t have issues with it, I wouldn’t if that was my job and I knew I was doing it honestly.
Actually, the real point of the entry was on how far we’ll let the technology creep into our lives. In the comments I mention it in hotel beds. Imagine a bed that records weight, oscillations, degree of oscillation, aso. You get the point. Now imagine selling that information to a marketing firm who determines that the hotel could be selling bedside condoms and putting condom ads on surfaces within the room (or maybe it’s the first thing you see when you turn on the cctv-controlled television).
There are some pretty deep issues here.
I think that’s too much. Going towards the point where advertisers and marketers and will be able to completely control our view of reality.
skinny: Looking at North America, I really doubt anyone will try to limit the reach of advertising. I think about the only constraints on ads in the US are obscenity and cigarettes. Csven, maybe the condoms wouldn’t pass because sex is obscene?
Again, I’m not focusing on a particular product. My point is that seemingly innocuous stuff can become something else entirely when it suddenly has the power to sense, compare and communicate. The issue is: what happens when these innocent objects suddenly have this built-in capability? What happens to:
microwaves (“You eat that and I’ll report you to your physician”)
skateboards (“You fell once and f’d up your knee. Fall again and I’m telling the insurance company”)
belts (“Uh oh. I see you’ve slipped a notch. Didn’t you promise the wife you’d lose weight? You know, since she paid for me, I really do report to her.”)
text books (“That’s right, Mrs Cunningham, Richie hasn’t opened me all year! And the teacher’s log book told me his grades suck.”)
doors (“I’m unlocked. I’m unlocked. I’m unlocked.”)
shoes (“Y’know, skinny, there’s a new extra-strength athlete’s foot cream called…”)
trash can (“Hey buddy. Is that what I think it is? Don’t you know it’s illegal to just throw that in the trash? You need to take that to the town’s hazardous material disposal center. Don’t make me call the cops.”)
So some things might make sense. Others will probably be resisted. But who draws the line? Where is the line (generally) drawn? How will these developments affect the way we perceive objects? our environment?
Lots of things tied up in this technology.
csven, your belt dialog was funny.