Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fanboy2000" data-source="post: 2047162" data-attributes="member: 19998">I've thought a lot about this and I have to disagree with you. Growing up, I've seen a great deal of parental mistrust , and I think it's getting worse. Many parents I met when I was growing up seem to think that their kid is capable of doing unspeakable things. The very few children who are capable of thouse things creates a fearful state in some parents where they feel that they are near powerless to stop their own children from doing harm. Add that fear to one other thing, divorce. Imagine you divorced someone and you see your child is exhibiting the same behavor that made you divorce your former spouse, now couple that with the fear of your child doing something unconscionable, and you have a dangrous mix. Growing up, I remember my parents (divorced) telling me that I was just like the other parent. I'm just glad that they divorced over minor diffrences rather than major stuff, or I might have had that problem.Also, there is a whole industry that makes money off of fear. They advertise fear and creat a fearful state in their clients (who are increasinly schools) so that they buy their products. Mistrust+current events+divorce+advertising+technology capable of invading your privacy. I think this is a very bad combination.I can't help but wonder, how were these problems handled 20 years ago? 30 years ago? I realize that schools used to use corporal punishment, but I have a problem beliveing that these problems only have one solution: radio tags.Also, this is like tagging animals because, in fact, it is also used to keep track of livestock.Let's analyze this locked door argument.If I leve a $5 bill on the ground in a hall, how many people would pick it up? A lot. Not everyone, for sure, but many people would. Also, many of them wouln't think it was wrong. (I don't think it's wrong.)Now, let's say I put the $5 bill in an unused, unoccupied room with no door. Now how many people would pick it up? Only those who need to go into an unsued and unoccupied room, people who goe in there by accident, or those looking for something (like trouble). Now, I put a door to the room and close. How many people will go into the room and pick-up the $5 bill? Fewer. There's a mental barrior to opening up a door to a room that you don't need to be in. Many of the people who go in there will do so by accendent, but some people will go in there looking for trouble. The number of people looking for trouble in a room with a door (particularly sence a door means they may get caught) goes down from just an open room.If I put a lock on the door, now people have to be doing more than just looking suspious, they have to do something illegal to get in. (Assuming they don't belong there.) Also, now it's obviously stealing when you pick up that $5 bill, because you had to get through a locked door to get to it. I've seen police not bother with a report if the door isn't locked. The police actually told a freind of mine that it was there fault because they left their car door unlocked.By this point, we've eliminated a lot of people from taking that $5 bill. In fact, my $5 bill is probably safe in an unoccupied, unused, and locked room. Now, here's the point of my argument. Up until this point, the steps have been pretty small and all of them have made my $5 bill noticeably safer. But at this point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Now is my $5 safer if I put a deadbolt on the door? By how much?What if I also add a chain?and another lock?and I make the door out of steel?or make it out of Titatium?My argument isn't that RFID is locking the door. My argument is that it locks the door, adds a deadbolt, a chain, another lock, and making the door out of steel. If people are still braking in and taking that $5 bill, then mabey another approch needs to be taken. One that involves asking the parents.Note, in the origanal article the parents weren't consulted. I have a feeling the principal knew this was a posable reaction and decided to not involve them.</blockquote>

Verification