Upgrade Your Dog

ptorrone writes "Engadget has glimpse in to the future, a future where your dog has a cell phone, webcam and electronic tag, and maybe even talks to you. Maybe. Some of this dog-tech isn't available yet, and some of it is (in Japan, of course). The overview includes some interesting iterations of pet technology, and they even made their own version of a dog webcam along with the first ever canine photographer's photo gallery." I'd rather see more of these things applied to infants.

What's wrong with normal pets?

[neuro.slug]

I like dogs because they're lovable, cute, loyal, and a pleasure to be around. Not because they're functional. Those Japanese will never learn...

babies too?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather see more of these things applied to infants.

As a parent, I can honestly say that I would NEVER EVER put an electronic leash on my 3month old. Who are these paranoid fuckwad parents who are lining up to chip their pets and unwilling children in the name perceived orwellian safety?

It's they who are to blame for the starting the slide down the slippery slope. "Oh, but this RFID comes with a cute camera and a crude baby-to-human universal translator! ahhh! how cute! and SAFE too!" Die you braindead soccermom fucks. Get some personal responsibility and learn to live with the fact that shit happens despite your best efforts to nerf the world.

Re:What's wrong with normal pets?

[TWX]

Some dogs are functional though. "Seeing Eye" dogs, drug sniffing dogs, bomb detection dogs, dogs to seek out victims in structural collapses, dogs that find people in avalanche areas, and the like. Personally, I'd like it if the technology could evolve to where the dog could actually indicate if it found drugs or if it found something that it wanted to eat or have sex with, instead of leaving that up to the dog's wrangler. Many a canine officer has claimed that someone had drugs in a backpack or whatnot at some point because the dog wouldn't leave a backpack alone, while there was probably just a candy bar in there or something. For myself, if I had a dog at all I'd just want a fairly mild-tempered, easy going, no-frills, housebroken dog.

Re:UGA Cam

[MrBlue VT]

Yep, of course this isn't new or original. Engadget just rehashes old concepts and pays [slashdot.org] Slashdot to put it on the front page. Hmm, up to 9 links this month, eh?

Re:Your kid first

[Anonymous Coward]

where is the tracking chip implanted, gatze? In the wrists? I'll make sure I cut her hands off when I abduct your 14year old for some fun times in the woods. In the neck? necrophelia never stopped psychos before. I am considering getting a faraday cage van too, then I can fuck your kids without getting blood on my shirt.

Infants?

[teamhasnoi]

I fail to see why an infant needs a webcam, gps sensor, e-tag, or translator.

If you're a good parent, you don't need this stuff.

Someone should send social services over to Timothy's house to see how many lost infants he's got in his garage.

sheesh. It might be neat on dogs, it's just dehumanizing on people.

From the best department ever

[antifoidulus]

from the cats-are-superior dept.
'Nuff said

*Ducks!

Re:Infants!?

[bigberk]

In a world where billions don't have enough to eat, we are now giving our dogs cell phones.

This is probably the most meaningful analysis of the situation, and also unfortunately the least concern to most :(

Re:Infants!?

[carcosa30]

There's nothing wrong with geek toys etc. I just have to laugh when I see people walking around encrusted with the newest pagers, cell phones, I-pods, PDAs, etc etc-- like barnacles on their waistlines-- when IMO they are oftentimes missing out on the things that are truly important in life. And I see it so much.

Wish I hadn't posted already :)

[Moraelin]

This is the most insightful thing I've read today, and I wish I could mod it up.

I find it sad that people basically want to shut their kids off and never have to talk to them. The kid is something that should be put on a leash, or at least stay the fsck out of the way, while the parent is busy watching football or the 15'th soap opera for today.

And when the kid learns something awfully wrong, and the parent never was there for them to teach them otherwise, the parent promptly goes looking for a scapegoat. Nosiree, bob. It wasn't me who's to blame, guv'nor. I never taught him to do drugs and beat other kids up. (Never taught him that it's wrong to do that either, though.) It was those evil game companies and TV companies. Let's sue those.

Dunno, makes me think of Peter's Principle. Just because they have genitals, people are elligible to be "promoted" to parent. Too bad that half of them are utterly incompetent for that job.

Re:babies too?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree !

The fact that there is such a thing in the US as parenting classes because people haven't got a clue anymore is bad enough allready.

This and the fact that US citizens are getting fatter everyday are causing the rest of the world not to take the US serious anymore. They can't even take care of themselves...

And Bush doesn't help either.. ;-)

Re:Well, I can't

[ajs318]

Once you get to understanding the relationship dogs have with their pack leader -- whether two- or four-legged -- then it all makes sense. As far as the dog is concerned, that is just The Way The World Works, and it really doesn't know any different. A dog will give you [almost] unconditional love, in return for you never giving it cause to fear for its life. Only then will it mount a leadership challenge -- and as likely as not it won't have any real idea how to do this, so the results are unlikely to be pretty. A dog basically wants its "pack leader" to be happy -- or, if it is the pack leader, it has to keep the whole of the rest of the pack safe, well-fed and gainfully employed. As far as a dog is concerned, being the boss is a responsibility too far. It would rather be another member of the pack; that way, it knows it's likely to get fed, and unlikely to have to keep anybody else out of trouble. For one thing, most dogs aren't leadership material anyway -- which is good from the point of view of keeping the pack stable.

You have to remember that dogs have been living with humans for at least 10000 years, ever since the wolves came down out of the mountains to investigate the strange two-legged creatures that were wandering about on the plains below -- and if they didn't like it, they would have gone back a long time ago. We humans have done a bit of evolving in that time -- we have invented things like civilisation, written languages, agriculture, and had the Industrial and Information Revolutions. Throughout all this, Man's Best Friend has stood loyally by his side -- you can't tell me that the dogs haven't been [mostly] enjoying it.

Actually there are striking similarities between the behaviour of a pack of wolves / dogs, and office politics. Including the way that domesticated dogs and wolves spectacularly don't get on with one another -- and I think we've all met people who are "too like me for me to like"!

Re:babies too?

[Overzeetop]

You may have a child (poor kid), but the mods who gave you anything but "troll" are idiots.

Of course you wouldn't put a leash on your three month old. You don't have to worry about getting separated from your 3 month old unless you put the infant carrier down and walk away.

Children ARE foolish, and parents are NOT perfect. As careful as I am with my 2 year old, I wouldn't hesitate to slap a gps wristwatch/pager on my kid if I took here to a place where she had any possibility of getting lost. No matter how attentive I am, there is still a chance - remote though it may be - of us getting separated. She's highly mobile at this age, and though knows her name (yes, first and last) just try to get that information out of here if she's lost and scared and surrounded by strangers.

Don't think it's worthwile? Explain that to the mother and father of the six year old who was playing with friends in the woods behind their house. The kids were playing hind-and-seek, and he hid just a little too well. Problem was, he got lost in the woods cause he forgot which way was out. They did find him. Three days later. Dead from hypothermia. Imagine how scared he must have been. With a three month old, you can't understand how your relationship changes over the course of a couple of years, but you shuld start thinking about it now. If your child ins't the center of your world, I suggest you ask yourself why.

If you haven't changed your mind, I can only hope that your child will turn out to be sterile and that will end your genetic line right there, for, in my opinion you are not fit to be a parent.

Whoa, settle down

[Slightly Askew]

Um, I took the comment "I'd rather see more of these things applied to infants" as a joke that the person would like to have an infantCam view of the world...especially during feeding times..wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.

Look for the humor in everything first. You'll live longer.

Re:Infants!?

[Just Some Guy]

In a world where billions don't have enough to eat, we are now giving our dogs cell phones.

Which is a shame, because that cell phone directly took the food from a photogenic orphan's mouth.

I just bought some grass seed for my lawn - instead of sending the money to a starving kid.

I recently paid for another 3 months of DSL service - instead of sending the money to a starving kid.

Next week I'll pay my daughter's tuition - instead of sending the money to a starving kid.

This morning you logged onto an Internet site to post a lamely trite message with a computer you or your employer bought - instead of sending the money to a starving kid.

This is the way of the world. Deal with it.

Re:Well, I can't

[YourMissionForToday]

It may mark you as "friendly" with its head. (Something completely different from marking someone as _territory_.)

Not according to animal behavior experts, but what the fuck do they know?

You gotta love slashdot; argumentative fucks desperately trying to change the subject even when pasted in the face with the facts. Represent!

What a whiney little post.

[Dirk Pitt]

You distill all of the things that we've come to know and love about dogs to biological imperative, but then explain a cat's positives in terms that, given your premise, should only be applied to human beings:

a species which was originally hard-coded into hunting in groups, obeying the strongest in the group, and marking and defending its hunting territory

A cat doesn't have a master. It might see you as a friend if you're nice to it. Or merely a roommate

I had to laugh when I ran into these two sentences that live in separate, but convenient for you, logical universes.

The house cat was derived from a solitary predator; it's aloof because, as you've pointed out, it has no inbred allegience to anything. It appears to be your 'friend' because you feed it, or drug it, or stroke its fur exactly the right way. It can be simplified as automata just as easily as a dog. And if you've never seen an intelligent dog, you've never seen one in agility training, or seeing eye dogs, or dogs that occasionally save a drowning child from a pool or its master from a burning house. If you're talking algebra, well, I think we've just entered the lofty heights of Homo sapien.

After all, who are you to say that human - and certainly cat - love is so different? Could you not distill human love down to the selection of the most genetically attractive partner? Or the biologically programmed imperative to care for a child? Or for the child to feel love for the 'master' that has fed and housed him/her, despite abuses and neglect? Dogs aren't the only ones that feel unconditional affection. I hope your opinions about animal emotion are only biased against Canis familiaris; if you can really see nothing about love and friendship that transcends basic biology, I pity you.