Six technologies endangered by smartphones

[Viseguy]

Originally Posted by kjk

The NY Times article was debunked here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2264778?nav=wp

That Slate piece sets up a straw man. As I read it, the Times doesn't purport to make the case that there's been a "dramatic increase in the number of NPS search-and-rescue operations in the era of the mobile phone, the satellite phone, GPS, and the emergency beacon" (as Slate would have it). It merely presents anecdotal evidence -- notably, interviews with NPS personnel -- indicating that many visitors have unrealistic expectations about what technology can do for them in the field, and that some people (the piece doesn't say how many) are pushing the "panic button" to mobilize search-and-rescue assistance when it's not necessary. Anecdotes don't prove anything, but if these incidents are making park rangers sit up and take notice, they shouldn't be lightly dismissed.

Slate adopts a curiously defensive tone, as if the Times were attacking technology by talking about these incidents. If the Times is indicting anything, it's the stupidity and poor judgment of the people who got themselves into these situations, putting themselves and others at serious risk of harm. I see it as a cautionary tale -- or, not to put too fine a point on it, scary.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Viseguy

That Slate piece sets up a straw man. As I read it, the Times doesn't purport to make the case that there's been a "dramatic increase in the number of NPS search-and-rescue operations in the era of the mobile phone, the satellite phone, GPS, and the emergency beacon" (as Slate would have it). It merely presents anecdotal evidence -- notably, interviews with NPS personnel -- indicating that many visitors have unrealistic expectations about what technology can do for them in the field, and that some people (the piece doesn't say how many) are pushing the "panic button" to mobilize search-and-rescue assistance when it's not necessary. Anecdotes don't prove anything, but if these incidents are making park rangers sit up and take notice, they shouldn't be lightly dismissed.

Slate adopts a curiously defensive tone, as if the Times were attacking technology by talking about these incidents. If the Times is indicting anything, it's the stupidity and poor judgment of the people who got themselves into these situations, putting themselves and others at serious risk of harm. I see it as a cautionary tale -- or, not to put too fine a point on it, scary.

The point is that people put themselves in harms way before GPS and technology, and will do so afterwards. To somehow use this as a "cautionary tale" about technology, without bothering to provide proof that technology has anything to do with anything besides a few colorful anecdotes, is what is scary, to me.