Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Technology on my mind.

As some of you may know debuted a new service called TextCaster Tuesday night. It is a free text message system which alerts subscribers to breaking news and weather. I have been a subscriber of the service since October from a TV station in Charleston and consequently have been the first to know about weather, road closures and breaking news. Before debuting the service here I wanted to see how it can be used. Then the massacre in Virgina Tech happened and it was clear needed to jump in and do this too. We are committed to developing technology that can help central Louisiana residents and have this potential warning system no matter how basic.

Could a text message service have warned the students of Virginia Tech earlier?

Facebook has become the place to mourn for college students wishing to express their pain in the aftermath of the shooting deaths on VT. If you wish to express your feelings has a special section
And finally, I want to thank all of you who took part in our discussion on gun control. Read this article to find out what our presidential candidates are saying.

The gun debate has begun again.


Anonymous said...

I'm loving the whole textcaster thing. As a meteorologist, the hardest thing for us is to warn people who are sleeping. With textcaster you can leave your phone by the bed and be updated on weather warnings as you sleep. Since we don't have sirens in central Louisiana, this is a great way to know you'll be informed in the event of a weather emergency.

Pawpaw said...

No, actually, the ones making an issue of it are the media. The politicos understand that to come out for gun control is a losing proposition.

Here's a better idea: Lets restrict the national media from reporting on incidents such as this for five days. We'll call it a waiting period. Local stations in the area can cover it, as part of their public safety initiative, but all media over 50 miles from the story would be restricted from covering it for five days. I think we can make the case that a "cooling off period" is necessary for thoughful, considered reporting. This wouldn't abridge the freedom of the press at all. After the waiting period, they cold report on it ad nauseum.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Paw Paw.
Restricting our access to inforamtion and controlling the press's right to report: what novel ideas. Was Stalin in the NRA? You obviously want to trade the 1st amendment for the 2nd amendment.

Anonymous said...

In my humble opinion I think all campuses should have a siren on each building and the students could become aware of each emergency in that way. One long blast would mean to stay in the building you're in, two could mean evacuate, and so on. Techology is great but not each and everyone has a cell phone or puter, nor is it handy all the time. Sirens would notify all but those who are driving toward a campus.

Pawpaw said...

Anon 9:46

That last paragraph was sarcasm, which doesn't always translate well in a written media. Of course I don't advocate trampling the First Amendment. I simply used the same language with the First Amendment that some people think are reasonable restrictions to place on the Second Amendment.

Anytime you see certain codewords such as "reasonable" "waiting period" "cooling off period" "law enforcememt" applied to the debate on the Second Amendment, turn those arguments around and apply them to the First Amendment. If they still sound reasonable, then check your door locks.

Spanky said...

Paw Paw,
I am beginning to feel that you and I are dinosaurs when it comes to the inherent right of self protection. It is evident that our young folk are as meek as the Jews and Gypsies in the path of the Nazis. God help them grow some cajones.

Anonymous said...

There are still some of us who believe that a government who takes our guns is a totally corrupt one and it must never happen here.

Anonymous said...

But there are far more of us who believe that semi-automatic weapons are designed and created for the destruction of human life and that ownership of this powerful technology should be regulated and monitored by a government we pay to protect us. The second amendment isn't about your right to own technology that kills human beings, and I doubt the framers of our Constitution ever considered a future in which such weapons existed. They were concerned with a citizen's right to organize and overthrow a corrupt government, not the right of a mentally deranged undergraduate to purchase a human death machine. If the government is supposed to protect and serve its citizens, then we should expect the government to respond to technological advancements in weaponry with appropriate laws mandating who is qualified to carry such technology. If you want to drive on our roads, you have to take driver's education, pass a test, and get a license. If we mandated gun ownership responsibility courses and ensured that every person who owned a gun had to pass a gun safety test, we would reduce the number of deranged or socially unstable individuals who purchase weapons on a whim. The NRA and its spokespeople are attempting to make this a debate about personal freedom, when it's actually a debate about collective responsibility.

Anonymous said...

The second amendment isn't about your right to own technology that kills human beings, and I doubt the framers of our Constitution ever considered a future in which such weapons existed.

I should add that the framers of our Constitution obviously were aware of weapons that could kill people, but it's unlikely that when writing the second amendment, they ever could have envisioned something like a semi-automatic weapon. If we are "free" to own weapons like semi-automatic guns, then why can't private citizens use the second amendment as grounds to argue acquire nuclear or atomic bombs?