3 ms·
I am not asking to limit anybody's freedom. A beacon would be attached to radiation source. Unless you are an individual who walks around with a highly toxic,
by twawaaay 4y ago
I am not asking to limit anybody's freedom. A beacon would be attached to radiation source.
Unless you are an individual who walks around with a highly toxic, highly dangerous radiation source, requiring it to have a beacon will not limit your freedom.
As to putting cameras to deter crime, they are shown not to work. The crime just moves to where there are no cameras. Or stupid people will crime anyway. US is leading or close to leading in both crime rates and incarceration rates, at least in the western world. Suggesting the basic premise of what US is doing may be flawed, from engineering standpoint.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mhb 4y agoRight. but things they have in common are questionable cost/benefit, and, undoubtedly, unintended consequences. It also is not a better way to solve the problem. Now someone has to replace the batteries of the "beacon" or remember to charge it? How are they going to remember? Why not just have that same person remember to check that the source is secured properly?
- twawaaay 4y ago> Right. but things they have in common are questionable cost/benefit, and, undoubtedly, unintended consequences. Attaching a beacon to highly dangerous radiation source is questionable, and has "undoubtedly" unintended consequences? Looks like searching for a problem where there isn't one.
- mhb 4y agoWhy not just have that same person remember to check that the source is secured properly?
- mrguyorama 4y agoBecause "Just do the right thing first" isn't actually a good harm reduction or problem prevention strategy? Shit goes wrong and you should have a system where lots of shit has to go wrong all at the same time before it causes a problem.