Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 06-04-2019, 04:12 PM   #461
WhiteTiger
Franchise Player
 
WhiteTiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin View Post
More to the point of Sliver's gripe since many on the annoyed by amber alerts side of the debate want solutions brought forth.

Would it be at all feasible to have amber alerts not reach the phones of kids? Like if your phone for your kids is registered that way with your provider then the government disables amber alerts to that phone?
That would be an interesting take on invasion of privacy vs desired privacy. Additionally, a lot of people (esp kids) tend to use Pay As You Go type features, which require pretty much no verified information to set up. We'd need to figure a way to deal with those
WhiteTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2019, 04:18 PM   #462
WhiteTiger
Franchise Player
 
WhiteTiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Exp:
Default

Nm

Last edited by WhiteTiger; 06-04-2019 at 04:27 PM. Reason: Pre-Coffee, long night shift, thought better of it
WhiteTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2019, 04:26 PM   #463
jayswin
Celebrated Square Root Day
 
jayswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger View Post
That would be an interesting take on invasion of privacy vs desired privacy. Additionally, a lot of people (esp kids) tend to use Pay As You Go type features, which require pretty much no verified information to set up. We'd need to figure a way to deal with those
But I was thinking more in terms of select parents that don't want their kids to receive them more than all kids not receiving them. So just a process where Sliver, for example could contact them and have his kid(s) phones removed under grounds they're minors.
jayswin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Old 06-04-2019, 05:47 PM   #464
Huntingwhale
Franchise Player
 
Huntingwhale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Out 403 View Post
I feel like me and sliver are on another planet on this. Are we really this wrong or has CP become this politically correct we can't question and offer compromises on this?
I'm with you guys. But god forbid I give my opinion here and then start getting called out for my 'lack of empathy' and other ridiculous broadstroke generalizations.

This is such an odd thread. Most of the online and verbal discussion I've had about this whole AA situation, there's an even split of people who like the idea, but at leasy they totally understand if someone wants it turned off. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I too, don't want my phone blaring off at maximum volume at 4am to warm me of an abducted child I know nothing about. I have enough sleep problems as is and don't kidnap children but god forbid I don't want to be disturbed. But in this thread, if I voice my opinion on that, I lack empathy and all that jazz.

I like the idea of AA. But I also support having some changes made to make it more suitable. I don't see why there can't be a compromise somehow.

Last edited by Huntingwhale; 06-04-2019 at 05:49 PM.
Huntingwhale is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
Old 06-04-2019, 07:29 PM   #465
powderjunkie
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin View Post
More to the point of Sliver's gripe since many on the annoyed by amber alerts side of the debate want solutions brought forth.

Would it be at all feasible to have amber alerts not reach the phones of kids? Like if your phone for your kids is registered that way with your provider then the government disables amber alerts to that phone?
There's an 'annoyed' side, and a 'concerned about effectiveness/appropriateness of implementation' side - I'd say there are very few of the former and more of the latter in this thread...


As for kids, I'm not particularly sympathetic or concerned about that point. IMO the level of maturity required to have a phone is a pretty reasonable counterpoint. The question in my mind is whether amber alerts warrant the 'nuclear air raid siren' sound, or if a different alarm sound would be more appropriate for this particular emergency (there are plenty of others to choose from).
powderjunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
Old 06-04-2019, 07:52 PM   #466
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin View Post
But I was thinking more in terms of select parents that don't want their kids to receive them more than all kids not receiving them. So just a process where Sliver, for example could contact them and have his kid(s) phones removed under grounds they're minors.

I disagree with this. A child is abducted from school, a bunch of kids see this child leave with an adult they don't know, but don't think much about it at the time because why would they? They don't know if it's a parent, grandparent, aunt, etc. Wouldn't the information they have about this be useful? They would be, "oh yeah, I remember I saw little Jimmy right after school and he walked with this blonde lady to a red car" or "we saw him at 7/11 and he was getting a slurpee with this guy".


I mean, to think that your kid doesn't know anything is pretty presumptuous. Do people ask for every minute detail of their kid's day?
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
Old 06-04-2019, 11:38 PM   #467
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntingwhale View Post
I'm with you guys. But god forbid I give my opinion here and then start getting called out for my 'lack of empathy' and other ridiculous broadstroke generalizations.

This is such an odd thread. Most of the online and verbal discussion I've had about this whole AA situation, there's an even split of people who like the idea, but at leasy they totally understand if someone wants it turned off. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I too, don't want my phone blaring off at maximum volume at 4am to warm me of an abducted child I know nothing about. I have enough sleep problems as is and don't kidnap children but god forbid I don't want to be disturbed. But in this thread, if I voice my opinion on that, I lack empathy and all that jazz.

I like the idea of AA. But I also support having some changes made to make it more suitable. I don't see why there can't be a compromise somehow.
On the one hand you say you like the Amber Alert system but then say you donít want to be notified of an Amber Alert you know nothing about. The entire point of the Amber Alert is to notify millions of people that no nothing about the incident to find the 10 that do.

The odds of you knowing something about the amber alert you Receive are near zero regardless of if you are sleeping or not. No evidence has been presented that people who are asleep at the time of the alert are less likely to have knowledge about it.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2019, 03:12 AM   #468
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
No evidence has been presented that people who are asleep at the time of the alert are less likely to have knowledge about it.
This is pretty self-evident. People who are sleeping when the alert is issued have been asleep for some length of time. In that time they can not possibly have gained any useful knowledge. So yes, on average, people who are asleep when the alert is issued both provide less value and are more costly to disturb.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2019, 05:21 AM   #469
jayswin
Celebrated Square Root Day
 
jayswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post
This is pretty self-evident. People who are sleeping when the alert is issued have been asleep for some length of time. In that time they can not possibly have gained any useful knowledge. So yes, on average, people who are asleep when the alert is issued both provide less value and are more costly to disturb.
What? Critical info can easily come before someone went to bed. They could have been with the kid(s) the evening before, the afternoon before. Think of the tragic abduction and murder in Calgary of the boy and his grandparents.

There was critical info all over the place for days leading up to it. Truck in one community, suspect in the area of family etc. C'mon man, abductions aren't always just "Hey, screw it, I'm going to go abduct those kids right now!!!

Last edited by jayswin; 06-05-2019 at 05:25 AM.
jayswin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Old 06-05-2019, 05:25 AM   #470
jayswin
Celebrated Square Root Day
 
jayswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post
So yes, on average, people who are asleep when the alert is issued both provide less value and are more costly to disturb.
They're not running a cost benefit analysis on the average help people are vs the time. They're desperately looking to hit the entire population for immediate help, knowing that it could be that one person who goes "Oh man, that's in my community...wait, that guy driving erratically last night in the green truck!".
jayswin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2019, 06:15 AM   #471
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin View Post
What? Critical info can easily come before someone went to bed. They could have been with the kid(s) the evening before, the afternoon before. Think of the tragic abduction and murder in Calgary of the boy and his grandparents.
Not just the evening or afternoon before, but minutes or within a couple hours before. SebC is acting like as soon as you fall asleep you enter a vortex where 15 hours pass. Just because an alert wakes someone up doesnít mean theyíve been asleep for 8 hours, thatís not how sleep works.

And bringing up a cost benefit analysis? For an alert? Yeah, I know when I get woken up by my alarm to go to work I do a cost benefit analysis too, every time. Because itís very very serious.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2019, 06:35 AM   #472
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Are you guys deliberately misrepresenting the point or do you legitimately not understand what "less" and "some" mean?

Last edited by SebC; 06-05-2019 at 06:43 AM.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SebC For This Useful Post:
Old 06-05-2019, 07:22 AM   #473
GordonBlue
First Line Centre
 
GordonBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin View Post
More to the point of Sliver's gripe since many on the annoyed by amber alerts side of the debate want solutions brought forth.

Would it be at all feasible to have amber alerts not reach the phones of kids? Like if your phone for your kids is registered that way with your provider then the government disables amber alerts to that phone?
you have to educate kids, not simply shelter them from the hard realities of life.
lets use a 13 year old as an example. that's more than old enough to have a talk about what amber alerts are for, and how important they are.

then sure, maybe have your daughter turn off her phone at night if being awakened could cause a panic attack in a nervous child.

does a child actually need to have their phone on all night long? I'd be more worried about her/him being groomed online by a perv than her being alarmed by an amber alert.

besides, if you allow people to register their phones as "kids" to not get notifications, you know darn well that thousands of grown ass adults are going to do that for their own phones.
GordonBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2019, 07:29 AM   #474
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC View Post
This is pretty self-evident. People who are sleeping when the alert is issued have been asleep for some length of time. In that time they can not possibly have gained any useful knowledge. So yes, on average, people who are asleep when the alert is issued both provide less value and are more costly to disturb.
There certainly more costly to disturb. The value of notifying people in each case is near zero and statistically indistinguishable with current data. (Ie 10 Amber Alerts)

But you do key in on the point the people who want it changed keep denying. That their empathy for the child is limited to being meaninglessly disturbed during the day. Once the cost to them increases it no longer outweighs the altruism.

It isnít about effectiveness because no one has the information. It isnít about a government F451 situation. Itís quite simply that people value their sleep more than the minute chance they can help. The rest is justification to support their opinion so they donít have to say it.

Now people are too harsh with these people who arenít as altruistic as them but letís not pretend the reason behind isnít selfish. Most human decisions are selfish.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2019, 07:54 AM   #475
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG View Post
The value of notifying people in each case is near zero and statistically indistinguishable with current data.
It is nearly a mathematical certainty that people on are asleep at the time of the alert will on average have less info than those who are awake. Consider the case where police are looking for a vehicle. The search radius expands linearly with the time since the kid was last seen. Of people who have been asleep for the latter half the time between the time elapsed between "last seen and "alert issues", only those in the inner circle (half the current radius) could possibly have information, and whatever information they might have would be older than someone in the outer circle. But a person who is awake at the time of the alert could have information regardless of their distance from the kid's last known location.

The chance for an individual to have info is near zero, but it's very likely even nearer to zero for people who are asleep when the alert goes out. The only way it could not be is if there's some counterintuitive offsetting mechanism that overpowers obvious effects like the one I described above.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2019, 08:17 AM   #476
Sliver
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Sliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonBlue View Post
you have to educate kids, not simply shelter them from the hard realities of life.
lets use a 13 year old as an example. that's more than old enough to have a talk about what amber alerts are for, and how important they are.

then sure, maybe have your daughter turn off her phone at night if being awakened could cause a panic attack in a nervous child.

does a child actually need to have their phone on all night long? I'd be more worried about her/him being groomed online by a perv than her being alarmed by an amber alert.

besides, if you allow people to register their phones as "kids" to not get notifications, you know darn well that thousands of grown ass adults are going to do that for their own phones.
Hey this is great, we have a mental health professional here. Could I come to your office with my daughter for a second opinion on the strategies we've been using? I haven't heard of this exposure therapy thing you're promoting for anxious children. Maybe you're right, perhaps it is time to educate her on the hard realities of life.

So should I just have a sit down with her tonight - I'll be sure to let her know she's more than old enough for the conversation (she'll love the insinuation that there's something wrong with her if the conversation bothers her) - and talk to her about abductions, and Amber Alerts, and how time is of the essence to finding a kidnapped kid before the really bad stuff happens? What bad stuff she'll ask? Oh, you know, rape, murder, torture. All the good stuff!

BTW, I don't want her receiving Amber Alerts at any time of the day. Her phone isn't on (or even in her room) at night because we're not completely idiotic.

Your advice is comically terrible and you're totally ignorant about this issue.
Sliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2019, 08:27 AM   #477
Sliver
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Sliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie View Post
There's an 'annoyed' side, and a 'concerned about effectiveness/appropriateness of implementation' side - I'd say there are very few of the former and more of the latter in this thread...

As for kids, I'm not particularly sympathetic or concerned about that point. IMO the level of maturity required to have a phone is a pretty reasonable counterpoint. The question in my mind is whether amber alerts warrant the 'nuclear air raid siren' sound, or if a different alarm sound would be more appropriate for this particular emergency (there are plenty of others to choose from).
My daughter has had a phone since she was nine. She's never lost it, never scratched it, and it looked brand new for the three years she had it until we upgraded her last September to a newer phone. The fact that she's responsible enough to own a phone has literally nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that she's a worrier. That's not a counterpoint at all. There's no connection.

I love how some of you are displaying no empathy whatsoever for my concerns or my daughter's well being, while at the same time berating me for having no empathy.
Sliver is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
Old 06-05-2019, 08:31 AM   #478
stone hands
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

I hope your child never has any critical information that could help find an abducted one in the future since you so adamantly want them to have nothing to do with amber alerts

Last edited by stone hands; 06-05-2019 at 08:33 AM.
stone hands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2019, 08:36 AM   #479
Sliver
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Sliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stone hands View Post
I hope your child doesnt have any critical information that could help find an abducted one in the future since you so adamantly want them to have nothing to do with amber alerts
I can guarantee you she won't have any information about an abduction in 99.9% of areas of the province. If there is an abduction that is in our vicinity, or involving people we/she may know, I do promise to ask her about it. She doesn't need to be startled with every Amber Alert that gets sent out.
Sliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2019, 09:05 AM   #480
chemgear
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
I love how some of you are displaying no empathy whatsoever for my concerns or my daughter's well being, while at the same time berating me for having no empathy.
This is where we've come. The appeal to emotion logical fallacy has run full force into itself.
chemgear is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:19 PM.

Calgary Flames
2019-20




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016