March 8, 2005

The New York Times has a front page (in the Web, anyway) article about colick today. Colicky Baby? Read This Before Calling an Exorcist by SANDRA BLAKESLEE . Sure, it’s basically the same regurgitated stuff that anyone that has had a colicky baby and has done a bit of research has read a million times over. But this time it’s in the New York Times! So it must be a real problem now. I’m not selling this article, am I? Anyway, check it out: The New York Times, “All the news that fits, we print.”

March 2, 2005

Happy birthday Yahoo! (Does that require 2 exclamation points?) Check out their netrospective. It’s quite cool in that totally ripped off 10x10 kind of way. I know it’s terribly off-topic but I feel the need to pay homage to the site and search engine that got many of us more interested in the web. Or at least showed how to find stuff. And will likely be a huge part of our childrens’ lives.

To celebrate, how about you enjoy a free ice cream from Baskin Robins, courtesy of your friend at More Diapers… er…. ok, it’s from Yahoo!.

February 16, 2005

File this under would have been nice to know about a month ago. A Northwestern study released today indicates that there is no increased risk for a c-section if an epidural is started when the mother first feels pain. Yup. Like I said, would have been nice to know a month ago.

February 11, 2005

So the Karate Kid is making a comeback according to a CNN.com article, The once and future ‘Karate Kid’. largely because Gen Xers remember it fondly as a good tale of morality that they want to pass on to their children. Macchio has even watched it with his kids and now more closely relates with the Mr Miyagi character than his own portrayal of the punk-ass kid, Daniel-san.

More interestingly, however, is the fact that Ralp Macchio is 43. HOLY SHIT RALPH MACCHIO IS 43! I always thought of the Karate Kid as being about my age. Not the Hilary Swank, Karate Kid 4. Nope, the Ralph Macchio character. I forget that Ralph played the 16-year-old Daniel-san when Ralph was, like, 72. I also forget that we count Ralph Macchio’s age in dog years. I mean look at the picture, he looks like he could be cast as the kid in Home Alone 13 tomorrow.

Now I feel really old. I thought that perhaps that realization would be brought on by having a child. I was wrong. It’s the realization that Daniel-san is freakin’ 43. 43! Shit.

Interesting if not somewhat disconcerting article on wired.com today, School RFID Plan Gets an F about a small California town that was paid byInCom(which has a really bad website), a RFID tracking company, to test the technology.

RFID, which has been in the news a bunch lately, gives the user the ability to track things, or in this case people, with small embedded chips that send out a radio frequency. Since the RFID chips have no embedded power source, they don’t send out a frequency unless in the presence of RFID scanner, so they’re not active for just anybody to track. This is also the technology behind those completely automated supermarkets that allow you to check out without removing anything from your cart that we’ve all been hearing about.

For obvious reasons, when applied to people, there are some privacy concerns. Compounding those concerns is that the school neglected to tell parents that such a system was in place. The idea behind the system is to allow simple tracking of attendance and to prohibit trespassers by mounting scanners above each classroom door. The scanners pick up the RFID chips embedded in student ID cards and send the data to a central server which then relays the information to the teacher who then visually identifies the student. It’s not as complicated as it may sound, but it may be as much overkill.

Now I’m certainly not the first person to write about the privacy issues involved in RFID chip tracking. Many people are afraid that once we have RFID chips embedded in all our products, a burglar could get a cheap scanner and scan houses to see if there are any items that apply to the B&E discount. To be honest, I’m not sure how that’s much different than looking in a window.

The other issue is that we’re loosing our privacy in regards to what we buy and when we buy (see:Lawmakers Alarmed by RFID Spying ). Here’s an example: Let’s say your sneakers had a chip in them that tracked tread wear. You go through a scanner at the grocery store that senses your sneaks treads were wearing low. When you checkout you receive a coupon toward new shoes. Sound farfetched? It’s not.

When applied to students, though, it brings up a whole new spectrum of privacy issues. For one, do we really need to keep that close of tabs on them? When all kids want is for their parents to trust them, what kind of message does this send to them? The more insudious problem, however, is obvious. If a predatory adult knew the tracking system for the kids and had a scanner, they could target and track a child in a much more concealed fashion.

I’m really on the fence when it comes to RFID. I can see all the good that comes from it. Then again, I think anything is good that allows me to be more lazy. I also see the privacy issues and the ojectifying of people. I mean, nothing says I love you like being assigned a 15 digit code.

What do you think?

February 8, 2005

Another gem from CNN.com this morning, that our local Fox affiliate promised to cover last night (”Does fruit juice make children fat? Find out at 11.”) is Study links juice, chubby children.

The abridged version is this: if your child is overweight at 3 to 4 years, and you give them fruit juice, they are 50% more likely to be overweight a year later. Those not overweight have no need to worry. While this is interesting and all, it seems more like a media machination than actual steadfast fact. For one, the universe in this study could by no means be construed as a true sample, as it was “10,904 Missouri children in a nutrition program for low-income families” My guess is that there were some other contributing factors inherent to low-income families that can account for some of these changes. Are low-income families who feed their kids fruit juice more likely to also give them other sweets? Does the same apply to all families? I don’t know, but as far as I can tell from the article, this, along with other variables, was not taken into account.

Also, as usual, the media gleans a big number, 5o%, without telling us the most important number. Is it 50% more than 200? 2000? 2? Big discrepancy. This is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to “studies” and the media. Give us all the numbers, not just the ones that make the best headlines and USAToday graphs.

The moral, according to More Diapers? When it comes to fruit juice, use common sense.