chip implant

Originally posted by apathist
Wouldn't our kids be safer? (We already tag our dogs.)

Where do you want to tag the little buggers? What body part?

Originally posted by Great Big Stees

*LOL* sounds like something from Airplane...timing is everything.

Bobby Hope...


😞

Originally posted by CLL53
Where do you want to tag the little buggers? What body part?

I'm not sure I want to. But maybe its a good idea.

To directly answer, not a limb.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Bobby Hope...


😞

Hope springs eternal.
😀 Glass half full.

Originally posted by Great Big Stees

Hope springs eternal.

😀 Glass half full.

You omitted 'where'...

Originally posted by Great Big Stees

Hope springs eternal.

😀 Glass half full.

You omitted 'where'...

Originally posted by apathist
I'm not sure I want to. But maybe its a good idea.

To directly answer, not a limb.

It might be a good idea, debatable though. Not sure just where on a child a chip could reasonably be implanted. The biggest negative I can see is that tagged dogs, tagged people, tagged whatever, only helps when the taggee is found - helps to identify where the taggee belongs. It won't help keep children from being abducted.

Originally posted by rookie54
safety iz an illusion...

[b]there is no such thing...

to worry and fret and wring yer hands over the "safety" of yer children is to fritter away any sweet time you have to love them...

do not succumb to fear...[/b]

That's why watching our kids is a bad idea.

Originally posted by CLL53
It might be a good idea, debatable though. Not sure just where on a child a chip could reasonably be implanted. The biggest negative I can see is that tagged dogs, tagged people, tagged whatever, only helps when the taggee is found - helps to identify where the taggee belongs. It won't help keep children from being abducted.

Say, in the skull. Nab your kid, and we geo-locate immediately. Why is this not a good thing.

Originally posted by apathist
Say, in the skull. Nab your kid, and we geo-locate immediately. Why is this not a good thing.

Open to abuse from over controlling parents maybe, the Police too possibly, hard to argue against it whilst April is still missing.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Of course, children these days are on average safer than they used to be back in the 1950s when nobody had a telephone. But don't tell the Daily Wail that.

Richard

Originally posted by CLL53
Where do you want to tag the little buggers? What body part?

Gluteus maximus seems the obvious spot, but I'd like to recommend those big yellow ear-tags they put on cows.

Richard

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You know who is, statistically, the most likely to abuse a child?

That nasty bloke down the road who never shaves? No.
That nice sweet shop owner who smiles just a little too much? No.
A random stranger, prowling the streets for ripe'uns? No.
The priest, the teacher, the sports instructor? No.

The parents.

Sobering, isn't it?

Richard

Originally posted by apathist
Say, in the skull. Nab your kid, and we geo-locate immediately. Why is this not a good thing.

If it is a good thing, since one can locate a nabbed person easiyl why not tag everybody?
And while we are about it, especially people having proven to be unreliable (sex offnders, murderers,...)?

The question is who may monitor whom because of what reason?
Say, the offender has acces to the locating information. This knowlöedgeable person would also know how to shield the chip effectively from being detected.
Then you can probably find out where the kidnapper took your child....

When will the chip be reomved? Or will it not?
May your say 10 year old have a reason to be somewhere you don't know? Could it be if you would be a oppressive parent?