Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Aug 2010 22:19 UTC
Multimedia, AV A couple of days ago we talked about how the RIAA and NAB are planning on asking US Congress to mandate FM radio chips inside every cell phone. This plan was met with some ridicule, so the NAB decided to write a blog post addressing the critics. Most of the post is overshadowed by an overdose of America's favourite national pastime: WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE. 9/11!
Thread beginning with comment 438364
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
FuriousGeorge
Member since:
2010-08-26

Remember the Indonesian Tsunami?

Was it 100K or 200K that died?

Remember the images of of people walking up to the receded shoreline to gather the mysteriously beached fish?

In many cases, NOAA knew what could potentially happen for hours, but almost no one else did.

In the time between the detection of the earthquake by NOAA and the landfall of the first wave, how many lives could have been saved if 90 character blast message were sent out warning resident of possible Tsunamis, and advising them to tune to a local radio station for details?

90 characters alone may not be enough to fully convey the gravity of the situation, and it's a fallacy to assume that just because you are in your car that you happen to have the radio on and tuned to a station in the know.

Sure, this scenario does not pass the "but-I-don't-want-Big-Gobment-increasing-phone-prices-by-$0.50" test, but if you are going to take that position you must explain why you are also opposed to the "seat belts in cars" mandate.

It's estimated that in the US seat belts save about 10,000 lives per year, a tiny fraction of the number that died in the Tsunami, and probably cost at least a hundred times more per unit.

As I said before, under the right (or wrong) conditions, and on a national-annual scale, this technology has the potential to save at least as many lives, if not more.

If you can stay ideologically consistent in this reductio ad aburdem style debate then I can respect your opinion, and agree to disagree.

Remember, it's quite fashionable to claim libertarianism, but a true libertarian will support the "right" of private or even public institutions to deny equal protection based solely on race, religion, or creed. The true measure of a libertarian, or any other ideologue, is how far he or she will follow the ideology as it approaches the logical extreme.

I for one prefer to first throw ideology out the window, and then grab a hose, when the house is on fire.

Edited 2010-08-26 19:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0