I think most people are bought in and you are trying to solve for a very small number of people who are being selfish and over-reacting to some that has minimal interruption to their lives relative to the benefits of the program.
You might be totally correct. Maybe the only people poorly affected or complaining are just total #######s that want to see the world burn (Stannis Baratheon).
The complaints about this from people annoyed by these alerts clearly shows that they're selfish and don't care about the life of a child. Real self absorbed.
I guess a child should die to make sure people sleeps aren't disturbed if they refuse to turn their phone off when they go to sleep.
There's a real simple solution to this by the people annoyed that they don't want to go through with. Turn off your phone. If you're keeping your phone on, you ARE okay getting notified by some message or alert, but I guess it's only if it pertains you, and can't be bothered if another child life is at risk.
This topic irritates me. It's showing a ugly side of society.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Joborule For This Useful Post:
Well if anyone who suggests an improvement or change to the system doesn’t care about the life of a child then I don’t think there’s much to discuss here.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
I think there is also a difference between people who complain to 911, and people offering options for improving the system. To assume that they got it right on the first go, and we should all just deal with it is suggesting that it is a perfect system. I'm open to hearing options for improvement, and as Whitetiger has said, they are submitting them. Calling everyone who doesn't 100% agree with the current setup selfish and self absorbed isn't really helpful.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Well its actually "think of this specific child who's LIFE has been deemed to be in danger".
"here is their name and description and where they might be and what vehicle they might be in"
"If you can help us...great! If not, go back to sleep."
Proper implementation of the alert system would accomplish the same thing. No one is saying not to send out amber alerts, all that is being said is that the priority system that was in place should be used correctly. All you do by making every single alert you send a catastrophe is that people will start to ignore them, then when you actually do need to send an alert that meets the highest priority, you've go a bunch of people who won't receive it because they figure its just another amber alert and ignore it.
The Following User Says Thank You to llwhiteoutll For This Useful Post:
Considering you can cross Ontario in pretty much a day, I don't see any valid reason not to have the alerts go out.
People get waken up all the time by inane things. Dogs barking. Gunfire. Shouts and loud parties. Doors slamming.
Amber Alert? Call 911. It's a few seconds out of your life for a chance to save a child's life.
Suck it up and go back to sleep.
those things are rare, not happening on a bi-weekly basis, but when any of those things do wake you up you call the police/bylaw to put an end to it. never heard a door slam loud enough from another house to wake me tho.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Well its actually "think of this specific child who's LIFE has been deemed to be in danger".
"here is their name and description and where they might be and what vehicle they might be in"
"If you can help us...great! If not, go back to sleep."
but which part of that would change if the alert only flashed on your phone and had the big text message that shows up without the alarm blaring?
anybody awake when it goes out will still see the alert and anyone sleeping isn't in a position to help. If most people are like me, they'd get the alert, wake up see its an amber alert, close it and go back to sleep. Big help there. I only recall one alert going out in Alberta (other than the tests) but happening every 3 weeks would get tiring, I get way fewer telemarket calls than that and it's enough for them to annoy me.
I think there is also a difference between people who complain to 911, and people offering options for improving the system. To assume that they got it right on the first go, and we should all just deal with it is suggesting that it is a perfect system. I'm open to hearing options for improvement, and as Whitetiger has said, they are submitting them. Calling everyone who doesn't 100% agree with the current setup selfish and self absorbed isn't really helpful.
I believe that if you're leaving your phone on in your bedroom, you're leaving it on for a notification of some type. If you really don't want to be disturbed at all, then turn off your phone.
When it comes to immetimate life in danger, do we really want to reduce the possibility of people taking immediate action if they're device is on and they are able to receive the notification? Because these alerts can be set to silent, but then is it working as well as intended?
I don't know how much compromise should be made for this, considering the stakes.
I understand the idea of having it go to everyone...
But the issue is, the people who are annoyed by it aren't going to look at it and do anything about it when they get it. So why annoy people then? To try and guilt them into caring some how? That never works.
People can be on call and need their phones in their bedroom or have family traveling or may need to have it on for some sort of call. They are going to ignore the amber alert anyway so whats the point? I just feel its easy enough and not going to affect anyone if you could turn it off or mute it after a certain time
because the point is to warn everyone, its not about guilting people into caring, its to notify everyone that something is happening and should they see/know something, to report it. thats pretty much it
Last edited by stone hands; 05-15-2019 at 04:29 PM.
I believe that if you're leaving your phone on in your bedroom, you're leaving it on for a notification of some type. If you really don't want to be disturbed at all, then turn off your phone.
When it comes to immetimate life in danger, do we really want to reduce the possibility of people taking immediate action if they're device is on and they are able to receive the notification? Because these alerts can be set to silent, but then is it working as well as intended?
I don't know how much compromise should be made for this, considering the stakes.
I'm leaving it my bedroom as an alarm clock. Or in the very rare instance, a nuclear attack, tsunami or other imminent threat to my life.
For the people that happen to be sleeping, what are they going to do with this uncontrollable alert going off multiple times at 5 am, 6 am and 8 am?
Is the intention to wake (a million) people up multiple times in a 1000 km radius and have them get dressed to drive and look around for the child?
If people happen to be asleep, an alert that might be silent but still forcible will still be there if they wake up and are actually conscious to do something about it. If they happen to be awake at the time of the alert, it will also be there in their face so they can do something about it. The people awake are also likely not to have their DND setting off so the alarm can blare all they like to get their attention. In both instances, people are still getting the alert in their face when they are actually conscious.
EDIT: I honestly don't understand what is lost if we allow the alert to not sound if a phone is put in Do not Disturb mode. You are getting the text alert either way, it's going to be in your face. Is the intention to wake those sleeping to physically join in the search?
EDIT of the EDIT: A why the hell doesn't the alert system show a damn picture of the missing kid/possible abductee in this day and age? It would be so much more helpful.
We have studies showing supposed increases in auto accidents and deaths after the daylight savings adjustments that we all know about ahead of time. Now we're blaring alarms for millions of people in Ontario at a pace of every 3 weeks at 5 AM, 6 AM and 8 AM (in this latest instance).
Yeah, people are severely underestimating the impact this could be having. Sleep deprivation has many consequences from mild annoyance to multi-death car accidents. When you subject a very large number of people to sleep deprivation it's entirely possible that the side effects would outweigh the gains. It's not just "child's life vs. minor annoyance" as it's being framed. If you personally have no issue being woken up, good for you, leave it on, and let those who are more sensitive turn it off.
I believe that if you're leaving your phone on in your bedroom, you're leaving it on for a notification of some type. If you really don't want to be disturbed at all, then turn off your phone.
When it comes to immetimate life in danger, do we really want to reduce the possibility of people taking immediate action if they're device is on and they are able to receive the notification? Because these alerts can be set to silent, but then is it working as well as intended?
I don't know how much compromise should be made for this, considering the stakes.
I don't really have a phone so I don't have a horse in this race, and if I did I wouldn't keep it in my room. But anyway, I can see the argument that it is of little help to wake sleeping people who are just going back to sleep. Everyone checks their phone the second they get up anyway, and they will see the alert then, probably more willing to give it actual attention as opposed to glancing, seeing the alert, rolling over and going back to sleep only to completely forget what it said or maybe even that they received it at all. Logical? Or crazy kid hating selfish antisocial jerk? Since that seems to be the extremes we are taking here.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
those things are rare, not happening on a bi-weekly basis, but when any of those things do wake you up you call the police/bylaw to put an end to it. never heard a door slam loud enough from another house to wake me tho.
but which part of that would change if the alert only flashed on your phone and had the big text message that shows up without the alarm blaring?
anybody awake when it goes out will still see the alert and anyone sleeping isn't in a position to help. If most people are like me, they'd get the alert, wake up see its an amber alert, close it and go back to sleep. Big help there. I only recall one alert going out in Alberta (other than the tests) but happening every 3 weeks would get tiring, I get way fewer telemarket calls than that and it's enough for them to annoy me.
Why do people think that being awake or asleep at the time the alert goes out automatically determines whether you are able to help? First, who knows when you went to sleep? You could have been awake minutes before and seen something of interest. Secondly, even if you were asleep for the last few hours, something earlier in the day could be a clue - “oh, I remember seeing that car in front on me, it was turning east on the highway”.
Anyway, this isn’t like some “boy who cried wolf” scenario like somebody described. They don’t just send out there alerts for questionable reasons. It’s pretty safe to say that any alert is pretty serious.
I'd rather word the bet like this because I don't know the tech behind how it could be implemented, but am confident in the following:
'Within 12 months of March 15, 2019, the phone notification alert system will be modified to be more surgical in its blasts to ensure fewer people will be notified of potential issues. The purpose of this would be to not disturb people with a low probability of being able to help and to target those with a higher probability of being able to assist.'
I'm not trying to move the goalposts, rather just trying to be super specific and not leave wiggle room for you or me in the bet. I'd rather keep it at $20, so let me know if you accept.
On payment, if there is no public way to find out if they have changed the system by March 19, 2020, I'd consider that a win for you.
If the system hasn't changed in the way I'm expecting within the year due to cost, lack of technology, lack of will, but is changed later than the year, it's still your win.
This bet is with cam_wmh only, so I don't need half the forum messaging me in a year looking for $20 if I lose. Finally, the spirit of the bet from my perspective is I this: I think the Amber Alert system is great and am thankful we have it, but I think it can be improved to limit disruption and I believe the managers of the system would agree with me and assure us they are looking to do just that. That is what my money is on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cam_wmh
Anyone complaining about this, is a POS.
Full stop.
Yes you Sliver. It's why I haven't re-engaged in your stupid bet, that you changed the goalposts on. Fools errand, taking your money.
I'm surprised you could read my post above and conclude I'm a piece of #### over it.
Yeah, people are severely underestimating the impact this could be having. Sleep deprivation has many consequences from mild annoyance to multi-death car accidents. When you subject a very large number of people to sleep deprivation it's entirely possible that the side effects would outweigh the gains. It's not just "child's life vs. minor annoyance" as it's being framed. If you personally have no issue being woken up, good for you, leave it on, and let those who are more sensitive turn it off.
how often is this happening in the middle of the night? I doubt getting woken up for 2 minutes once every 6 months is going to cause havoc on the streets.
how often have you been woken up by an amber alert? probably not too many. you're more likely to be sleep deprived by having drinks and watching an 8:00pm flames game than you are by getting woken up for an amber alert.
Hopefully they can consider possible adjustments as necessary to continue to get people to pay attention & buy-in to the process and not call 9-1-1 or get complacent and succumb to the cry wolf syndrome.
here's an opinion piece from Robyn Urback today that I think covers everything you've mentioned.
it is nevertheless fair to say that the system isn't perfect, and could do with some improvements. It doesn't mean you don't care about missing children to suggest that.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GordonBlue For This Useful Post:
it is nevertheless fair to say that the system isn't perfect, and could do with some improvements. It doesn't mean you don't care about missing children to suggest that.
It’s still that dense argument that the alert is intended to wake people up to go and search. Every critique on the internet is, “are they expecting me to put in my pajamas at 2am to go and search?”. No, it’s not to get you to wake up and go join a search party, you smeghead. It’s to get the message out to people who might have information.
