Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Aging Baby Boomers Spawn New Tech Markets

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the grandma's-little-helper dept.

Businesses 119

PreacherTom writes "With the generation of Baby Boomers starting to enter their 60's, 75 million Americans will cross that line in the next 20 years. For the first time, though, this group will be composed of people who have grown up with technology. Enter a new industry: tech for the elderly that provides greater independence and better health, with an eye to users' privacy and dignity. Some examples (with pictures) would be the Pill Pets, stuffed animals with LCD's that tell their owners when to take their medicine, and Aware Car, which provides electronic warning systems to compensate for losses in reflexes." A national coalition, the Center for Aging Services Technologies, was established in 2003. Intel is doing some imaginative work in the area of assistive technology.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pill Pet? (5, Insightful)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115850)

Do people who are familiar with technology really need to hide their pill reminders in a stuffed animal? That sounds more patronizing than anything.

Re:Pill Pet? (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115980)

Yes. They do. Clearly you have never seen some nice old lady all atwitter at one of those cute furry mouse-looking covers for a computer mouse. Or the little old lady driving down the road with nine trillion plushies in her back window. Or the women who come to play bingo at my place of employment and bring their lucky troll doll collection with them. Obviously it's not for everyone, which is why they're not going to stop selling the traditional pill reminders. What do you have against choice?

Re:Pill Pet? (2, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116964)

Clearly you have never seen some nice old lady all atwitter at one of those cute furry mouse-looking covers for a computer mouse.

I have, but she was born before the Wright Bros. flew under power.

On the other hand I know 20 year olds who knit doofey covers for Kleenex boxes, but they don't expect to get their email on their Kleenex box either.

In any case it's the 20 year old knitting Kleenex box covers who's going to grow old and go all atwitter over a teddy bear pill reminder. It isn't because she's old, it's because she's doofey. Patting me on the head because I'm old because she is doofey is condescending. I didn't put up with that crap as a child, I'm not going to put with it in my second childhood. Children are people too, they aren't just little adults, but they are people. Old people, likewise, aren't just big children even though some of them act like it.

Me, I was born before an artificial satellite orbited. I grew up knowing how to knit, but I also grew up with Erector Sets and electronic experiment sets. The biggest section in a toy department was likely to be the Gilbert science stuff and they let us buy real chemicals by the pound right over the counter. Warm and fuzzy meant rockets with tailfins and chrome.

In a lot of ways us baby boomers are far more comfortable with technology in its raw state than "you kids," because you mostly buy gadgets, we played around in the guts of stuff and invented the gadgets you play with. Hand us a teddy bear pill reminder and we're likely to rip its little brain out to see what we can do with it. I've got nothin' against teddy bears as teddy bears. I've got a couple. But I've also got a laptop; and I know how to use it to remind me of things.

But yeah, choice is good. Anyone who wants to be all doofey about it can go for it, just don't be bringin' that shit near me, because it's my choice not to be condescended to.

KFG

Re:Pill Pet? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117108)

Patting me on the head because I'm old because she is doofey is condescending.

You are allowed to have that attitude as soon as someone forces you to buy the thing.

Are you really going to go on a tirade and start knocking over shelves if they put the pill reminder teddy bears on the shelf next to your normal pill reminder?

Old people, likewise, aren't just big children even though some of them act like it.

Sure, not all of them. Just the ones that act like it. If someone wants to act like a child, then they can be treated like a child, whereas if they want to act like an adult, I am more than happy to treat them like one - and in both cases, this is regardless of age.

Re:Pill Pet? (3, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117768)

Sure, not all of them. Just the ones that act like it. If someone wants to act like a child, then they can be treated like a child, whereas if they want to act like an adult, I am more than happy to treat them like one - and in both cases, this is regardless of age.

Thank you, I 'preciate that. You, however, are not typical.

When you were 8 you went to school and took sports/violin/whatever because your teachers/parents wanted you to, not because you wanted to. You will find as you grow older that most people start treating you in that manner again. In controled care situations like nursing home they treat pretty much every resident that way. You will get a teddy bear pill reminder because that is what they want you to have.

In the meantime a targeted rant now and again may be just the whack upside the head the people who will be marketing things to me and the people who will be caring for me need to remind that, like bad generals, they are thinking about the last generation when "solving" the problems of this generation, even though they may well be deluding themselves that they are thinking of this one.

Are you really going to go on a tirade and start knocking over shelves if they put the pill reminder teddy bears on the shelf next to your normal pill reminder?

I'm not a two year old. I don't go on tirades. I'm a curmudgeon. I post rants. In RL they come off as Billy Connelly type comedy routines and people laugh.

KFG

Re:Pill Pet? (2, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119288)

In the meantime a targeted rant now and again may be just the whack upside the head the people who will be marketing things to me and the people who will be caring for me need to remind that, like bad generals, they are thinking about the last generation when "solving" the problems of this generation, even though they may well be deluding themselves that they are thinking of this one.

Well, I don't think that those people are reading slashdot, and of those who are, they are probably going to ignore you and cite some study that says old people react well to stuffed animals.

I'm not a two year old. I don't go on tirades.

It doesn't stop Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.

Re:Pill Pet? (2, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119702)

. . .they are probably going to ignore you and cite some study that says old people react well to stuffed animals.

Exactly! They may well find, however, that the old people they are studying are not the old people they are marketing too, which is what they purport to be about. The old people they are studying are people born before WWII, not the people born after, whose money it is they are after.

They may well find their capital already gone when they figure out that we're looking to buy built in wireless for our GPS enabled, laser guided (with or without sharks) Aeron by Segway wheelchairs, not beeping teddy bears. The network in the nursing home better be secure as well, because if it ain't we're going to get in and have some fun.

Does it run Linux? Well, it does now! And now when I tell the android candy stripper, er, striper "Yeah, right. Blow me," she's going to interpret it as a command. Hey, Jim, what do you think about clustering our wheelchairs?

It's going to be a Brave New Nursing Home.

KFG

Afterward: (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119798)

>I'm not a two year old. I don't go on tirades.
>
>>It doesn't stop Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.

Touche!

KFG

Re:Pill Pet? (2, Funny)

mdpye (687533) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116100)

with an eye to users' privacy and dignity. Some examples (with pictures) would be the Pill Pets, stuffed animals with LCD's that tell their owners when to take their medicine
The author obviously has a rather different definition of dignity to me...

Re:Pill Pet? (1)

khephera (1009359) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116272)

I'm over 50. If I want to be reminded of something, I'll put it in my pocket PC or whatever the next-gen calendar device is going to be. There's no reason why, when someone hits middle age, they should be targeted with inane devices such as the Pill Pet. I'm still waiting for a version of Windows to come out minus all the pop-up balloons and idiot prompts; I certainly am not going to want a car or toy telling me what to do.

Re:Pill Pet? (1)

bloobloo (957543) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116526)

Hello Albert! [dilbert.com]

This season's hot Christmas gift... (3, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116916)

Medicate Me Elmo!

No, but they do need... (1)

gerf (532474) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117058)

A version of Linux that's so simple they just click on ginormous "EMAIL" and "BROWSE WEB" icons on a desktop. Seriously, it's what my mom would actually use. Maybe throw in a "PICTURES" in there, in case they have kids sending them pictures.

Of course, you could set it up in the background, and it of course wouldn't have much functionality. And, the browser and email client skins would have to be customized a bit. Simple media players identical to current digital players would be great too.

Re:Pill Pet? (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117128)

Now keep in mind this IS the generation that brought us the pet rock we are talking about.....

Waiting for augmented pets (1)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115852)

Regarding Pill Pets - I'm holding out for the real thing. I want Fido to get my pills and do my shopping for me. I'd imagine that implantable computers will probably be able to facilitate augmented pets that can do amazing things within the next 20 years. Whether or not ethical questions will kill the idea is another thing.

Or ... I could just buy myself a helper penguin [youtube.com] . Apparently penguins are much smarter than I thought.

How about augmented humans? (2, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116022)

If we have implantable computers -- real brain/computer interfaces, not just electrodes wired to pleasure and pain centers -- I'd rather have one myself than give Fido one.

I have a long history of Alzheimers in my family, and unless there are some good treatments or augmentative systems at that point, I plan on playing Russian Roulette until I lose at the first sign of dementia.

But yeah, a dog that could buy me beer would be cool.

Re:How about augmented humans? (2, Funny)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116118)

But yeah, a dog that could buy me beer would be cool.

A lady walks into a bar with a bulldog on a leash. The bartender says, "hey! You can't bring that ugly, flea-ridden thing in here!"

The lady says, "How dare you talk about my dog that way!"

The bartender says, "I was talking to the dog!"

Re:How about augmented humans? (3, Funny)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118248)

I plan on playing Russian Roulette until I lose at the first sign of dementia.
*picks up revolver*
*pauses*
What was I suposed to use this for?

Lawn-Bot (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17115912)

Combine Roomba, audio microchips, and motion sensors and have an automated robot to yell to tell those damn kids to stay off the lawn.

Re:Lawn-Bot (1)

sulfur_lad (964486) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121312)

Lawn-bot would also need a shotgun and obligatory large jug labeled 'XXX'.

I want an aware car (3, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115924)

And I'm only 36. I personally want- as a minimum- adaptive cruise control tied to a proximity alarm. I want infrared lasers shooting out 8 ways from my car, measuring distance- and a heads-up-display readout plus audible alarms.

This tech has been avilable since the 1980s, but we've yet to see it in consumer-grade vehicles. Why is that? I'm willing to bet mandatory use of such tech would save at least 2000-3000 lives every year on the highways; after all, it's not the speeding but the tailgating that kills you.

Probably too expensive. (3, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115956)

Why is that? I'm willing to bet mandatory use of such tech would save at least 2000-3000 lives every year on the highways; after all, it's not the speeding but the tailgating that kills you.

There are lots of technologies out there that would almost certainly save lives if implemented, but aren't because they'd be too expensive.

In the scheme of things, human life has a measurable value, and it's not as high as some people would like to think.

Re:Probably too expensive. (2, Informative)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116496)

Its not the value of human life that makes such tech prohibitively expensive, its the cost of litigation. Should such life saving technology fail, there are those that would just as soon litigate against the auto manufacturer than say "oh well, that is how life goes sometimes" because whenever possible, people will blame their bad driving on someone else.

I've said it before, so here we go again, when all vehicles are able to drive themselves, and not before, will it be safe to have autopilot driven vehicles and vehicles that can compensate for the ever changing and moody unpredictability of human vehicle operators.

Not only would IR lasers not be sufficient in many cases, but could lead to false positive identifications, and thus cause an accident in which poor aunt Rita died, and now automaker such n such is no longer in business. Where life and limb are at risk, it is (so far) way safer to trust the human brain than a computer, even if said computer was comparable to Cray computers. This is why NASA still sends humans into space. The technology is still not sufficient to replace the human brain and senses.

That is not to say that things are not getting better, just not yet good enough to replace the human. The vehicle that will parallel park itself is doing so in a limited domain. The same sensors and computer would not be sufficient to handle highway driving, not even as an early warning system of sorts.

Aware cars lead to less aware drivers (4, Informative)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115996)

Overly-aware cars lead to a false sense of security, which leads to drivers not paying attention to driving. Now, **some** amount of technology - rear-view cameras in the dash, for instance - are good as they augment your vision in areas where you cannot possibly see. Take for example the removal of stop signs Ejbay and Ipswitch [spiegel.de] . Drivers are forced to be more alert and people are safer because of it.

Re:Aware cars lead to less aware drivers (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116070)

That's not such a bad thing - things to make what you can do more easy/efficient (such as reducing the angle you need to turn your head to see behind you - i.e. the dashboard reaview camera), or distance sensors to tell you how close you are to the curb that the front or right side of your car prevents you from seeing.

That's great.

If you have trouble telling that the person front/left of you is about to switch into your lane, that a turn is coming up, or that the cars ahead of you are stopping, you might want to consider giving up your license.

I did, and I would not get it back even with the adaptive equipment like mentioned here, because it would not improve safty, as one would suspect.

Re:Aware cars lead to less aware drivers (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116772)

You mean I can't get up for a cup of coffee after putting the RV on cruise control? Honestly, the only truely safe vehicle for most americans is a "Bus"

Re:Aware cars lead to less aware drivers (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116970)

I'm for that to a certain extent also- I think that a viable solution to the problem of overcrowded interstates would be investing some money in more Amtrak Autotrains (Currently ONLY available in the highly profitable East Coast corridor, autotrains get cars off the freeways in between towns while giving the driver a break- you literally just drive your car onto the train, and then you have your choice of either staying in your car for short trips, or moving to passenger cars or even sleeper units for longer trips).

Re:Maybe those audible sounds should sound like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117694)

your wife yelling at you. Yeah, that should do it.

Re:I want an aware car (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116004)

This tech has been avilable since the 1980s, but we've yet to see it in consumer-grade vehicles. Why is that? I'm willing to bet mandatory use of such tech would save at least 2000-3000 lives every year on the highways; after all, it's not the speeding but the tailgating that kills you.

Because the technology is going to be adapted to solve the problem from another angle: semi-autonomous roadside missile launchers. Using Doppler radar and lasers, the system will measure the speed and distances between cars and automatically take out tailgaters and speeders. Lock and load!

Re:I want an aware car (4, Insightful)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116036)

The problem is those 3000 lives are YOUR fault, and thats the way they like it. If the car is as driver-centric as possible there is no chance for litigation claiming that a design flaw caused the car to operate the way it did. Addition of automation systems that have not seen EXTREMELY long trial periods are unacceptable risks for the motor companies. The sad state of litigation in America ensures that if a car company implemented a system that saved 2999 lives but was directly responsible for 1 death, it would be scrapped immediately and the producing company would be severely penalized.

Re:I want an aware car (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116580)

I think Air bags prove you wrong.

Re:I want an aware car (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117522)

What, the part where they killed babies? Passenger air bags (the only real risk) took several years to gain acceptance. It's pretty easy to prove operator error when there is a baby seat strapped in and a big blatant sticker that says not to put one there.

The risk I am referring to is when an adaptive cruise control system paces a car going too fast and (for whatever reason) loses control, or follows a car too close and bumps into it, causing it to lose control and cause an accident. Its quite hard to prove that the operator was at fault when they were allowing the system to do what it was designed to do, even if they are inadvertently breaking traffic laws in the process. No one wants to be the first to stick their neck out, and with good reason.

Re:I want an aware car (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121362)

"What, the part where they killed babies? Passenger air bags (the only real risk) took several years to gain acceptance."

as would any new car technology.

My point was that air bags killed people before they put the stickers on the car, but never a whisper of lawsuit.

Re:I want an aware car (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116162)

You could also wear a motorcycle helmet while driving a car. It will improve your safety in the case of a crash.

Re:I want an aware car (1)

Greenisus (262784) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116314)

BMW offers this in their 7 series sedans:

http://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/7/750iSedan/Highlig htDetail.htm [bmwusa.com]

It's called Active Cruise Control

Re:I want an aware car (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117162)

And all for the bargain price of just over $70,000...yay! I can't wait until all cars have this and every fender-bender becomes a $10,000 repair bill. Pretty soon, it'll cost $1000/mo to pay for auto insurance. Isn't technology wonderful?

Though it's interesting to note that it uses radar rather than infra-red confirming a suspicion I've held for quite some time that the highway patrol has almost completely switched over to lidar. Otherwise there's no way they'd allow a car with an active radar system on the road.

Re:I want an aware car (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116342)

Would you like a low altitude alarm and a gear-up warning buzzer with that?

Re:I want an aware car (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116692)

Only if they're finally willing to bring the Moller Skycar [moller.com] into mass production and a reasonable price range. Of course, several other posters have said why not: The American Legal System, Civil complaints division, is so illogical that if 2999 lives were saved, but one lost, we'd rather take the tech completely off the market.

Re:I want an aware car (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116782)

YES!

I want a car that goes "slow down whoop whoop slow down whoop whoop".

Re:I want an aware car (1)

mspohr (589790) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116406)

Adaptive cruise control is available from TRW and is available from Ford and other auto manufacturers.

Even better is electronic stability control (ESC) which is available on many new cars. This automatically senses skids and applies selective braking to individual wheels (and in some cases throttle control) to correct skids.

Re:I want an aware car (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116854)

Even better is electronic stability control (ESC) which is available on many new cars. This automatically senses skids and applies selective braking to individual wheels (and in some cases throttle control) to correct skids.

I remember reading about that when it was being beta tested on GE locomotives- each wheel is independantly driven by an electric motor, and thus the computer is able to compensate for the traction under each wheel in nanosecond timeframes.

wrong (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116668)

" it's not the speeding but the tailgating that kills you."

Actually, it's the not paying attention that kills you.

Re:wrong (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117032)

Thus my original idea- to give the driver sensors in his blind spots (proximity) to make him more aware of his surroundings.

Re:I want an aware car (1)

korbin_dallas (783372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118592)

Pffft. Screw that.

I am going to get a Tractor-Trailer Rig, and fill it up with 40,000lbs of rocks.
Then I will just plow over everyone in my way. THATS the 'merican mentality to driving!

Actually Pimped Big Rigs are the next step is super pimped SUV technology.
That or Pimped School Buses I can't decide which.

Re:I want an aware car (1)

not-enough-info (526586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118716)

And I'm only 36. I personally want- as a minimum- adaptive cruise control tied to a proximity alarm. I want infrared lasers shooting out 8 ways from my car, measuring distance- and a heads-up-display readout plus audible alarms.

This tech has been avilable since the 1980s, but we've yet to see it in consumer-grade vehicles. Why is that?
*queue music* munnamunna munna munna munna munna munna...
Marxist Hacker42, a shadowy flight into the dangerous world of a man who does not exist. Mark Hack, a young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the powerless, the helpless in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Re:I want an aware car (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119440)

I personally want- as a minimum- adaptive cruise control tied to a proximity alarm.

You've already got one - it's attached to your leg.

Re:I want an aware car (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120150)

I was unaware that I had infrared distance monitoring eyeballs on my leg. How do I access the information from them?

Re:I want an aware car (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120610)

Bah, why do you want this stuff anyway? You're driving, not taking a ride in your car. I've got cruise control and I don't ever use it - it just isn't useful for anything other than ruler straight roads in Kansas. The more you have your car do, the less you will be able to do, until your car is just some personal subway car (not that that's wholly bad). Ditch the jones for the cruise control and watch where you're driving.

Re:I want an aware car (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122498)

Bah, why do you want this stuff anyway?

So that I can drive *better* and be more aware of my surroundings, of course. I want a split second warning when I'm not looking at my mirror and some drunk comes up behind me.

As for the personal subway car- what's wrong with that? That's the reason why my commute on a normal morning when I'm not going down to HQ 40 miles away is 5 minutes of driving and 45 minutes riding the train.

Re:I want an aware car (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122564)

As for the personal subway car- what's wrong with that?

Doesn't go to the mountains. I'd still use it for commuting, though - spend some of what I save on an ipod.

Re:I want an aware car (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119550)

And I'm only 36. I personally want- as a minimum- adaptive cruise control tied to a proximity alarm. I want infrared lasers shooting out 8 ways from my car, measuring distance- and a heads-up-display readout plus audible alarms.

I'm 39 and I don't want any of that crap (well, I suppose cruise control is handy, but that's it). I can't believe all the bells and whistles bloatparts that they put in cars now. If you can't back up without a TV camera and sonar then you shouldn't be backing up. There's a warehouse around the corner from me where these guys back up fifty-foot big rigs *around a corner* and into a loading bay using just their mirrors - No stinkin' sonar for them.

My 1988 Nissan 4x4 pickup has a manual gearbox, manual transfer case, manual windows, a manual speedometer, no heated seats, no LCD in the dash. There's a computer, but it's there for emissions controls, not to run the LAN that controls the tail-lights. The truck's staring down 300,000 kms and everything still 'just works'. If I wanted to buy that truck today from Nissan I can't - I have to have power windows and AC and every other piece of crap you can imagine.

Normally I'm all for helping the disabled... (2, Insightful)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115950)

However, if you need this...
Aware Car, which provides electronic warning systems to compensate for losses in reflexes."

You probably shouldn't be driving, unless the car can drive itself, in which case you aren't driving anyway...

Re:Normally I'm all for helping the disabled... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116020)

Aware Car, which provides electronic warning systems to compensate for losses in reflexes."
You probably shouldn't be driving, unless the car can drive itself, in which case you aren't driving anyway...

You shouldn't be flying unless you can see where you're going and/or know WTF you're doing, but that doesn't stop aircraft manufacturers from including collision, stall, and crash warning systems.

Re:Normally I'm all for helping the disabled... (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116106)

yes, but those don't reduce the requirements that the pilots need to gain a piloting license either.

Note: I'm saying this from the perspective (mine) of someone who would probably be able to get a license with such equipment, but cannot now.

Re:Normally I'm all for helping the disabled... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116368)

BTW I do believe that we need a better test to get a driver's license in this country. Not that the tests are the same from state to state, but perhaps they should (or anywhere there should be a federally mandated minimum.) I think it's way too easy to get a driver's license. Germany has higher speed limits, yet less accidents; licenses are harder to get, easier to lose, and they require more driver training than we do.

Re:Normally I'm all for helping the disabled... (1)

Kijori (897770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116804)

You shouldn't be flying unless you can see where you're going and/or know WTF you're doing

Personally, I prefer the pilot to be able to see and know what he's doing.

Or is that why there are two of them in the cockpit?

Assisted driving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17115966)

So now even Morgan Freeman isn't good enough to drive our elderly around, we have to get a computer to do it? When will this country finally see equality?

If you ask me, the best help old people can get would be a car that forced them to STAY AT HOME. Come on grandma, you can order your crochet needles on the Internet and they will be there faster than you can change your adult diaper. Please don't go cruising around with no attention to the traffic around you, in a boat that even your bifocals can't help you see end to end, causing pileups. It's bad enough there are TEENAGERS out there.

Reminds me of a joke.... (2, Funny)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116196)

....

Agnes heard on the radio a traffic report about a car going the wrong way down highway 69 causing accidents left and right. Alarmed because that is the route her husband Howard takes every morning, she calls him on the cell phone to warn him.

"Howard! Please be careful, honey. The radio is reporting that some maniac is driving the wrong way down route 69!"

To which an exasperated Howard replies, "One maniac!?? There's dozens of them!"

Re:Assisted driving? (2, Funny)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116248)

Yeah, you get in the way of all of us Michael Schumacher wannabe, lane-changing, bumper-following, cellphone-using, donut-eating, coffee-drinking, radio station-changing, makeup-applying, hair-combing, computer-using drivers who are *far* more aware of what's going around us than you are.

Re:Assisted driving? (1)

SupaYoda (531436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121352)

Nah, the award goes to one my husband saw recently on his commute... FOLDING LAUNDRY.

Warning! You are approaching a farmer's market! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17115998)

had to be said

Pffft.... (1)

whiskeyriver (909231) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116018)

Pill Pets? This technology has been around for ages. They're called "helper monkeys."

Re:Pffft.... (1)

Who235 (959706) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116454)

...pray...for...mojo...

What did they do before technology? (3, Funny)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116048)

For the first time, though, this group will be composed of people who have grown up with technology.

Because of course, technology is a recent discovery. Fire was only discovered is the early 1920s, and as recently as the 1950s most Americans lived in caves and ate dirt.

Oh, and the world was black and white back then, too. When everything got colorized, old pictures and movies stayed the same, because they were color pictures of the black and white world.

Re:What did they do before technology? (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116190)

Oh, and the world was black and white back then, too. When everything got colorized, old pictures and movies stayed the same, because they were color pictures of the black and white world.

But how do you explain all those color paintings from that time?

Re:What did they do before technology? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116532)

But how do you explain all those color paintings from that time?

The pigments in the paint were colorized along with the rest of the world. Of course, the artists in those days couldn't see what colors the paint would become. Ever wonder why all those old paintings have Jesus look European?

Re:What did they do before technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116616)

The color atoms used in the paint changed color as the rest of the color atoms in the world did.
The atoms in the film were unable to change since they were isolated from the flow of time by the time trap field that is present in all film and photo prints. BTW. As most of us know, the tt-field is there to make the reflection look like its frozen in time.

Re:What did they do before technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116644)

Agree with you 100%, my grandmother had a vacuum, fridge and washing machine before WW2, uncommon certainly but she was a working mum (nurse) and needed the labour saving devices. They got a TV around 1950 although the UK had a broadcasting service since 1936.

A lot of what has happened since are refinements or technology used to resell us our Video or Gramophone collections not things that have revolutionized our lives like the items I've listed.

Re:What did they do before technology? (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117064)


Because of course, technology is a recent discovery. Fire was only discovered is the early 1920s, and as recently as the 1950s most Americans lived in caves and ate dirt.


You mean we "ate dirt and were grateful we had it."

Of course, technology existed when us boomers were young. It just didn't change that fast.

Back in the day, we had quaint phrases like "atomic age" and "space age" -- as if we expected a thousand years to be dominated by a single technological trend. Now the shelf life of an "age" is more like a thousand days. There never was an "Internet Age"; the "dot com" boom is generally considered as lasting from 1997-2001. It isn't that we don't have atomic reactors or space craft of the Internet anymore; it's just that it's faded into the background of our consciousness. The most enduring cultural tech trend has been the iPod.

Re:What did they do before technology? (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117778)

Of course, technology existed when us boomers were young. It just didn't change that fast.
Although it's certainly sped up since then, the rate of technological change in the early-to-mid 20th century was already pretty brisk. The Boomers' parents lived through the rise of air flight, automobiles, and telephony from novelty to near-ubiquity.

Aware-Aware Car (3, Funny)

zumbojo (615389) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116054)

So the elderly will have Aware Car, and the rest of us will need Aware-Aware Car to locate and avoid the masses of crazy old drivers in Aware Cars careening all over the highways.

Dark times lay ahead pedestrians everywhere.

Re:Aware-Aware Car (2, Funny)

scheming daemons (101928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116080)

My question....

...will the "Aware Car" be aware that the left turn signal has been blinking for the past 60 miles?

Re:Aware-Aware Car (1)

whiskeyriver (909231) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116136)

My question.... ...will the "Aware Car" be aware that the left turn signal has been blinking for the past 60 miles? They're gunna turn left again SOMETIME, right?

Re:Aware-Aware Car (1)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117016)

I won't need an Aware-Aware Car, just a James Bond car with missiles behind the headlights. Anytime I see a driver with a cap, a flick of a switch rids the world of one more fogey driver that should've had their license taken away from them long before.

Zero To Entitlement In... (1, Insightful)

susano_otter (123650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116158)

So how long will it take before everybody decides that these expensive new technologies are actually entitlements that every human being has a right to?

Re:Zero To Entitlement In... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116402)

Not to worry, a combination of global warming, high petroleum prices, job outsourcing, terorist attacks, and runaway government spending will have wrecked the economy by then. People will be too preoccupied with catching pigeons to cook for dinner to worry about hi-techn health care for grandma.

Re:Zero To Entitlement In... (1)

Jzor (982679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120468)

As soon as everybody decides that quality medical care is something that every human being is entitled to.

Re:Zero To Entitlement In... (1)

susano_otter (123650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121162)

Why should human beings be entitled to quality medical care?

What have you done to deserve quality medical care? How far does your entitlement go? Are you entitled to find a smart person and force them to develop better medical care, in order to benefit you? Are you entitled to find someone who has already developed better medical care, and force them to give it to you? Are you entitled to find someone who is providing quality medical care at a price of their own choosing, and force them to lower the price to benefit you? Are you entitled to a percentage of the income of your fellow citizens, to fund whatever quality of medical care tickles your fancy?

Are you entitled to a state of the art, $10,000, ultralight carbon fiber and titanium wheelchair, or just any old $100 wheelchair?

Are you entitled to the most expensive and extreme treatment, or just the cheaper but less effective treatment? Are you entitled to force people to develop a more effective treatment? Are you entitled to get the newer more expensive treatment at the same cost as the older, cheaper treatment?

Are you, in fact, entitled to anything other that whatever wealth you manage to accumulate through your own hard work and good luck, and whatever goods and services you buy with that wealth?

Waiting for the AutoLax (1)

whiskeyriver (909231) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116218)

So I'll never be "irregular" again.

Age adjusted video racing games (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116282)

HoverRound Racers, edlerly players race around a Walmart on power chairs. Shoppers beware!

Target Source Problems, Not Just Impact On Ederly (1)

DumbSwede (521261) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116572)

Instead of making cars safer for the elderly, how about eliminating the need for piloted driving totally? I'm guessing we could slash our over 40 thousands deaths per year to a mere fraction of this if all vehicles were autonomous. Now that cars can navigate autonomously as proven by the DARPA grand challenge and with assist by GPS and WiFi it should be orders of magnitude cheaper to put this in place than a decade ago -- we need only the political will to get the job done. No more drunk drivers and likely and end to grid lock. There might be fuel savings as well as cars are allowed to slip stream on one another in spacing to tight for humans to maintain at highway speeds. Autonomous micro-deliveries might reinvent shopping and food service.

It is time to embrace our technology enhanced future.

Re:Target Source Problems, Not Just Impact On Eder (1)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117090)

how about eliminating the need for piloted driving totally?

They already did that [wikipedia.org] . Seriously, what would be the point to having auto-drive cars?

Re: because it uses existing infrastructure (1)

DumbSwede (521261) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117472)

Uhhh... What train stops at your front door or Wal-Mart?

The usual misuse of the word "technology" (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116802)

> With the generation of Baby Boomers starting to enter their 60's, 75 million
> Americans will cross that line in the next 20 years. For the first time,
> though, this group will be composed of people who have grown up with
> technology.

Because as we all know there was no technology before 1945. Back then everyone lived in caves and ate windfalls.

Re:The usual misuse of the word "technology" (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121330)

You had Caves? You were Lucky!

Who dies if they don't take their meds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116912)

...Pill Pets, are stuffed animals with LCD screens that remind their owners when it's time to take a pill or go to the doctor. If the senior fails to report back to the Pill Pet after performing that task, the creature will simulate sickness or death, prompting an emotional response.


So it's a case of "Take your pills, or the stuffed animal gets it!!!" I thought something useful would happen, like some care giver being alerted. Instead, the stupid electronic pet dies, possibly along with the old person. Very helpful...

Will "unchanging" become a marketing advantage? (2, Insightful)

phamlen (304054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116972)

As the boomers age, their ability to learn and remember new things will diminish (natural part of aging.) As a consequence, I think they're going to want a computer platform which is stable and unchanging; they aren't going to want the "latest and greatest" every couple of years. Plus, as reflexes get slower, people aren't going to need the latest superfast computer in order to play games. A real market for stability in the consumer marketplace will open up...

I predict there will be a company that makes its mark in building such a platform for the elderly that has a lifetime of 10-15 years rather than needing to be upgraded every few years. It will probably support email, web browsing, a basic platform for games (including support for those older games that the boomers grew up with and still want to play.) and some kind of remote monitoring to fix things if the user can't. Their business model will probably be built on maintenance fees ("buy this computer, technical support and maintenance is just $20 a month, and you'll never need to relearn the programs.")

My other prediction: Someone will start developing software games that adapt their speed to people's reflexes - as people get older, their reflexes will slow down but they'll still want to play the game. Imagine Tetris but with some intelligence to adjust to slower reflexes so that the game is still fun for people who have lost their twitchy trigger finger reflexes.

Re:Will "unchanging" become a marketing advantage? (1)

expatriot (903070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121324)

Stability of the user interface can be a big selling point to many people. For example, the success of Apple.

My wife (61) is unhappy with the change to IE7.

Being reminded to take pills can be a life and death issue, as I noticed with my mother-in-law's Parkinsons.

Age-related memory problems are a bit like losing the index on a database. You know the data is in there, but you can't find it quickly. PDA with keyword searchs could keep people functioning longer.

Privacy? Dignity? (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117086)

I know there's a lot of talk about these, but I can't take it seriously. Not in a country where everyone wants to get on American Idol, or Survivor, or Springer, or some reality show. The reality is people will degrade themselves to no end to gain some fame (or infamy). And the Boomers are the worst of the lot.

Re:Privacy? Dignity? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119482)

> I know there's a lot of talk about these, but I can't take it seriously. Not
> in a country where everyone wants to get on American Idol, or Survivor, or
> Springer, or some reality show.

_Everyone_? Are you quite certain of that?

bfailzors. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117136)

Lost its ear7ier

"technology" (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117566)

For the first time, though, this group will be composed of people who have grown up with technology.
Yeah, because electric lighting, radio, automatic firearms, automobiles, phonographs, steam and electric trains, gas stoves, and x-rays are really no different from rubbing sticks together.

Technology use has nothing to do with age (2, Insightful)

hellfire (86129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117730)

Studies have been done that show that people are just as likely to be a technogeek or a technophone regardless of age. Maybe the baby boomers have grown up with more electronic technology than previous, but that doesn't mean that markets will really "open up."

There's also a stereotype that the older generation tends to be less computer savvy just because they didn't grow up with it. That's also not true, because I had 70 year old professors in college and relatives of my grandmother who are using computers like they were script kiddies and college software pirates. My Grandmother is a luddite, but that's part of her upbringing. She's been a luddite since she was 25, according to her husband.

It's true that if you grew up with computerized technology, you are more likely to understand something else you haven't seen before, but that's true with anything. There's a marketing myth that expands that which says that if you grew up with a specific technology, you are more likely to buy it. Rubbish. I know plenty of people who don't have cable and who don't own their own computer. These people are in their 20s and 30s!! They work with computers, because in business you almost always have to. But that doesn't mean people like it or have the desire to take it home.

My father is very intelligent and savvy, but has no desire to learn accounting software so he never uses a computer. My mother is much less savvy, having problems dealing with updates, error messages, and quirky technical problems, but finds things like shopping online very convenient and enjoys email. My father had much more computer exposure before my mother bought their current home computer, she's the one who's urging him to use it more. My parents both belong to that boomer generation.

My point is that age has nothing to do with it, and I suspect these companies that when target an age group just because they think they might be more technically savvy, they'll be in for a rude awakening as they fall flat on their face.

They'll also be competing for money of an age group (60+) which is historically known to be full of tightwads. Not because of personality, but because they are retired or near retirement and on a fixed income!! Unless the technology is a cheap robot which can do chores for the elderly and infirm, I don't see anyone making boku bucks selling "cool technogadgets" to seniors of any group.

These devices are not marketed to Old People. (0, Troll)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119248)

They are marketed to the children of Old People who will be paying to care for the Old People. The Old People trusted their government and employers and didn't do independent retirement saving. Now they are screwed and the coming generations get to pick up the tab. The tab isn't just in money, but in time as well.

I almost feel sorry for those Old People who are broke...but then I remember how they've been voting for authorotarian candidates and I just can't muster up much sympathy. Let them lay in the beds they made.

The aware car is easy (2, Funny)

Aging_Newbie (16932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17118236)

Just a switch on the floor of the passenger side and a beeper operable by said switch. Place spouse in passenger seat and drive somewhat faster than s/he would like. Voila!

Age-friendly cell phone (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119110)

One thing I saw in the Dec 11 2006 BusinessWeek [businessweek.com] was a cell phone that is *just* a phone (although it does have a 12-15 number memory feature). It's called the Jitterbug from GreatCall [gojitterbug.com] .

Re:Age-friendly cell phone (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119592)

It isn't "just a phone". It has a screen (and it is excessively expensive).

Re:Age-friendly cell phone (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122284)

When I first saw the commercials I was thinking "oh a cheap simple cell phone for the seniors" but it isn't cheap. They'd be better off buying a GoPhone or something from Wal-Mart.

mo3 down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17119214)

are allowed to play CONFLICTS THAT Be a lot slower

apostrophe for poster (1)

sadangel (702907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122218)

I refer you to the interweb's foremost authority on the matter: http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif [angryflower.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?