Remember that the bag's Zigbee radio is broadcasting the bag's location constantly in real time, whereas the child's embedded GPS transceiver is using an accelerometer to help predict when the child will zip across the roadway; plus the child's Wi-Fi chip, network path, etc., will all add latency. If that child's GPS receiver has lost signal due to interference, it's going to need to rely on inertial navigation and its own free-running clock to send the predictions of future locations to the car, and those might be out of sync, depending on how long the child has spent in the basement.

Oh, wait. Children aren't having embedded ADS-B chips surgically implanted yet? And random trash bags don't have Zigbee? Hasn't someone been thinking of the children?

I heard a great quote from a filmmaker who encouraged his cameramen to take big risks: "If you're going to soar with the eagles, you can't expect to crap like a canary."

They shot mountains of unusable trivial footage, which cost them a ton of cash. But they also produced some spectacular, memorable films, which catapulted them and their clients to huge popular success. He realized that he had to risk his business to succeed, and he won. Not everyone who takes those kinds of risks succeeds, but companies that take no risks generally don't explode with success, either.

One alternative is to abolish fines, and send people to jail for an amount of time relative to the infraction. Everyone gets about 22,000 days [source: The Moody Blues] so the punishment would be equal regardless of income, right?

As others have said, every person is different in their abilities and limits. And I know nothing about your friend's situation, so I can only tell you about the situation I've worked with.

My aunt was born with cerebral palsy, and she has always had much better control over her feet than her hands. Her solution was to place an ordinary trackball under her desk, (the large kind, not the marble sized one) and she uses her bare foot to control it.

Because it's foot operated and she can't really clean it effectively, it gets dirty much faster than a desktop trackball, and so she ends up replacing it more often than you would a mouse. But overall it's been a pretty cheap investment, and one that works for her.

It'd be pretty easy to do, really. Create a quarantine VLAN, and if someone's spewing bad packets, flip them into it. Once inside, there could be all kinds of safety rails. All DNS requests would be hijacked and rerouted to the ISP's special quarantine DNS server. Packets would only be allowed to destinations where a valid DNS request was previously made. No routing would be allowed through the network: all packets must either have a source or destination address within the VLAN. SMTP traffic would be restricted to a few per day, with only a few recipients per day. Some destination ports could be closed, such as IRC. If they were DDoSing a site, perhaps with the LOIC, the address for that site would be completely unreachable from within the VLAN. The account holder would get warning SMS and Email messages, and all port 80 web traffic would be silently proxied and injected with scripted pop-up banners. They would say something like "Some computer on your home network is attempting to damage other computers on the internet. This is likely due to a computer virus or other computer infection. In order to restore service, and avoid falling trap to an online scam, please telephone us immediately using the phone number printed on your most recent billing statement from BigISPco. Your internet connection will remain severely limited until after you have your computers repaired and cleaned, you call us to restore service, and we verify that your computer is no longer attempting to attack other computers."

Long time ago I had a co-worker who made a mistake where he lost a lot of un-recoverable data. He went in to our boss to offer his resignation. My boss said "Hell no! I just paid $100,000 for you to learn that lesson, so now I need you to make sure that kind of thing can't happen again."

That's not enough. A drone could be flown autonomously using inertial navigation, or even dead reckoning, needing no external RF guidance. They have to be able to bring them down without praying that jamming all RF will work.

On the other hand, hobbyists have had model rockets for 50 years and there's been no rain of home-made ballistic missiles on the White House. Maybe it's just not a big deal.

Just remember, the Secret Service treats imminent threats to the POTUS as doomsday scenarios. No bat-shit crazy response is completely off the table, regardless of unintended consequences.

I suspect they've already done all the controlled environment testing they can. As you know, deployment in the field is the ultimate test. Washington is saturated with RF noise, with legitimate transceivers operating on every possible frequency and at varying levels of power. Being able to play "spot the drone amidst the noisy backdrop" is hard enough. Being able to 100% protect the President is something they have to get right the first time, and every time. Responding harshly to too many false positives may also create a nuisance backlash, so they may just be tuning their rejection filters.

And when the museums feel this has gotten out of control, they can address it. Complain to the museum so they know it's a growing problem. Otherwise, yeah, deal with it.

We banned tripods at our exhibit a few years ago as they cluttered the aisles, and we offered the photographers the chance to arrive before hours to take their shots. If selfie sticks become a problem, we'll ban them, too.

Too many jerks who froth at the mouth when they read a headline like this instead of reading the summary, or, god-forbid, the article itself. They remember being told something about 1984 being a totalitarian dystopia, and confusing it with their lives.

Yes, we live in a camera state, and there are now even more hidden cameras than Orwell could have imagined would be possible. But no, not every camera is watched 24x7 by the Ministry of Truth. Not every camera's footage is available to the authorities on a whim.

If you're the curator of a museum, and if you think they are causing a problem for your exhibits, put up a sign and ban them. If you aren't, let the professional curators deal with them, and you can learn to not mind other people's business.

I agree completely with everything you said, and on my last vacation we took less than a dozen photos in total. And yet none of how you or I enjoy our trips should ever be applied to anyone else. If someone else wants to spend their vacation running around with a selfie stick, why should you or I care? I certainly won't dread encountering them.

I'm glad you're the final arbiter of what is right and wrong in the field of taking pictures and vacations; that people must only enjoy themselves in a manner of which you approve. You're obviously intent on curing the technological ills that plague our modern world, and for that we should all be grateful. I'd vote for you because you clearly won't allow those pretentious people to be pretentious on your watch.

In other words, "Lighten up, Francis."

Who the hell "dreads" a pole with a camera on it? You are seriously deranged if that's a clinical phobia you suffer from.