It's coming...

  • Thread starter Richard Brookman
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Srtgray wrote:

>
> Interesting. Is that based on the principle that most people don't
> travel very far and wide? I wonder what the granularity of time slice
> was (every second, minute, hour?)

I think so, - do the numbers, 60 x 24 x 365 x (75 years mean life), say
two, 32 bit numbers. 10 Gig is a rate of about a sample every 2 seconds
of your life. You only live on average a bit over 2 giga seconds, and
if you only stored movements, you could compress the data enormously

Steve
 
On 2006-08-07, Srtgray <[email protected]> wrote:

> Interesting. Is that based on the principle that most people don't
> travel very far and wide? I wonder what the granularity of time slice
> was (every second, minute, hour?)

You don't have to store on time, you can store on distance, e.g. write
a new location stamp if they move more than 20 metres.

Coming to a nano-tracker implanted into your teeth soon ;-)

Tinfoil hats at the ready!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
On 2006-08-07, "David G. Bell" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Why bother? Because the number-plate reading isn't good enough. People
> would get bills for every toe-rag with a fake plate, and there would be
> enough unreliability in the system that they'd win in court.

It's trivial to jam satellite signals if you know the frequency, the
signals are very weak. If you had enough know-how then you could feed
false time pulse signals to the GPS from a transmitter that would fool
it into thinking that the signal is from a satellite, and its position
information would be meaningless. Such a device would be relatively
small and use little power as it would only need to transmit weakly.

> The Police know how unreliable it all is. They can work with unreliable
> info; the accountants cannot.

Tough **** on the accountants, the country's not full of sheep, if
they want us neatly ordered and processed then that's not about to
happen.

Besides I'm not convinced of all the techno-fear stuff being rained
down on us, technology is never as good as people think and what looks
like a foolproof system tends to fall to bits once exposed to the real
world.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
Steve Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think so, - do the numbers, 60 x 24 x 365 x (75 years mean life), say
> two, 32 bit numbers. 10 Gig is a rate of about a sample every 2 seconds
> of your life. You only live on average a bit over 2 giga seconds, and
> if you only stored movements, you could compress the data enormously

Since 32bits on lat/long resolves to about a centimeter I suspect
they could compress it a lot.

nigelH



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 
Ian Rawlings wrote:
> On 2006-08-07, "David G. Bell" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Why bother? Because the number-plate reading isn't good enough. People
>>would get bills for every toe-rag with a fake plate, and there would be
>>enough unreliability in the system that they'd win in court.
>
>
> It's trivial to jam satellite signals if you know the frequency, the
> signals are very weak. If you had enough know-how then you could feed
> false time pulse signals to the GPS from a transmitter that would fool
> it into thinking that the signal is from a satellite, and its position
> information would be meaningless. Such a device would be relatively
> small and use little power as it would only need to transmit weakly.
>
>
>>The Police know how unreliable it all is. They can work with unreliable
>>info; the accountants cannot.
>
>
> Tough **** on the accountants, the country's not full of sheep, if
> they want us neatly ordered and processed then that's not about to
> happen.
>
> Besides I'm not convinced of all the techno-fear stuff being rained
> down on us, technology is never as good as people think and what looks
> like a foolproof system tends to fall to bits once exposed to the real
> world.
>
I agree. I'd still go with Matt's posting, about the autoroutes over in
France. Since VED money (should) only go to maintaining the trunk roads
and Motorways (main roads are the responsibility of the county, local
roads the local council, so Council Tax pays for anything lower than
Trunk) it makes sense to scrap VED and put the burden on the user of the
roads for which it is paid, ie motorway tolls. France gets its people
to use the Motorways (and hence pay) by having the speed limits
significantly different - 90 km/h (the famous 56mph) on the
non-motorways, 130 km/h (about 80 mph) on the autoroutes. Most people
are happy to pay to legally drive the higher speed (as well as of course
avoiding junctions and towns)

The toll system is pretty easy to use, and unlike British roads prior to
the Rebecca riots, well maintained (that was the drover's main grouse
with the system, AIUI)

Stuart
 
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:39:26 +0100, Huw wrote:

>> Many already voluntarly carry such a device, it's called a mobile
>> phone.
>
> That only works if it is switched on and used.

Switched on yes, used no.

> It cannot yet limit your civil liberty or raise revenue based on where
> you are.

It wouldn't be a very big step to take and a lot easier for the populace
to swallow than an implant.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
Dave Liquorice wrote:

>> It cannot yet limit your civil liberty or raise revenue based on where
>> you are.
>
> It wouldn't be a very big step to take and a lot easier for the populace
> to swallow than an implant.
>
That recent Dr. Who at the birth of the cybermen had it right.....

Steve
 
On or around Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:10:13 +0200, Srtgray
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>>
>I agree. I'd still go with Matt's posting, about the autoroutes over in
>France. Since VED money (should) only go to maintaining the trunk roads
>and Motorways (main roads are the responsibility of the county, local
>roads the local council, so Council Tax pays for anything lower than
>Trunk) it makes sense to scrap VED and put the burden on the user of the
>roads for which it is paid, ie motorway tolls. France gets its people
>to use the Motorways (and hence pay) by having the speed limits
>significantly different - 90 km/h (the famous 56mph) on the
>non-motorways, 130 km/h (about 80 mph) on the autoroutes. Most people
>are happy to pay to legally drive the higher speed (as well as of course
>avoiding junctions and towns)


I'd not be worried about tolls on motorways, provided we had enough, decent
motorways - what I object to is a uniform road pricing system that you pay
per mile of road use regardless of where you use the roads or why.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10
 
On or around 7 Aug 2006 06:29:05 -0700, "gordon" <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>
>Richard Brookman wrote:
>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5249538.stm
>>
>> Road pricing via a black box in your vehicle.
>
>Think I'll change the Series One back to positive earth and see what
>that does to their fancy modern electronics!

tee hee, now there's a thought.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10
 
Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:10:13 +0200, Srtgray
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>
>>I agree. I'd still go with Matt's posting, about the autoroutes over in
>>France. Since VED money (should) only go to maintaining the trunk roads
>>and Motorways (main roads are the responsibility of the county, local
>>roads the local council, so Council Tax pays for anything lower than
>>Trunk) it makes sense to scrap VED and put the burden on the user of the
>>roads for which it is paid, ie motorway tolls. France gets its people
>>to use the Motorways (and hence pay) by having the speed limits
>>significantly different - 90 km/h (the famous 56mph) on the
>>non-motorways, 130 km/h (about 80 mph) on the autoroutes. Most people
>>are happy to pay to legally drive the higher speed (as well as of course
>>avoiding junctions and towns)
>
>
>
> I'd not be worried about tolls on motorways, provided we had enough, decent
> motorways - what I object to is a uniform road pricing system that you pay
> per mile of road use regardless of where you use the roads or why.

Absolutely. Hiking petrol costs also, to replace VED, just punishes
rural folks whilst not stoppin gthe problem.

Stuart
 
In message <[email protected]>
Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On or around 7 Aug 2006 06:29:05 -0700, "gordon" <[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >
> >Richard Brookman wrote:
> >
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5249538.stm
> >>
> >> Road pricing via a black box in your vehicle.
> >
> >Think I'll change the Series One back to positive earth and see what
> >that does to their fancy modern electronics!
>
> tee hee, now there's a thought.

So they'll just ban it from the roads! Don't forget we're talking
about "Ban Everything Becuase One Of My Mates Doesn't Like It"
Tony & Chums.

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 
On 2006-08-07, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'd not be worried about tolls on motorways, provided we had enough, decent
> motorways - what I object to is a uniform road pricing system that you pay
> per mile of road use regardless of where you use the roads or why.

I have four cars, can only drive one at once, and work from home so
don't drive daily so VED is PITA, but I don't believe for a moment
that VED will be scrapped. That's been mentioned in some of the blurb
about toll roads but we'll end up with toll roads *and* VED. I don't
think I'm being particularly cynical either!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 

"Dave Liquorice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:39:26 +0100, Huw wrote:
>
>>> Many already voluntarly carry such a device, it's called a mobile
>>> phone.
>>
>> That only works if it is switched on and used.
>
> Switched on yes, used no.
>
>> It cannot yet limit your civil liberty or raise revenue based on where
>> you are.
>
> It wouldn't be a very big step to take and a lot easier for the populace
> to swallow than an implant.
>

I don't know about you but I find even the most compact of phones hard to
swallow. No doubt with nanotechnology such devices could be incorporated in
some kind of easy to swallow bolus.
Seriously, such a device would be next to useless if it were optionally left
at home or switched off, so it won't be.

Huw


 
Dave R wrote:

||| The Rebecca riots helped rid the country of toll roads once before
||| in 1839 so only an idiot would think modern citizens would look
||| more kindly on extensive tolls...........................
|||
||| Huw
||
|| If you think i'm dressing up as a bird just to fight the tolls then
|| you can think again! unless it's a Saturday night........
||
|| Davina

Christ, that wasn't you was it?

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.


 
Matthew Maddock wrote:

|| Richard Brookman wrote:
||| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5249538.stm
|||
||| Road pricing via a black box in your vehicle.
||
|| It'll never happen.

I'm sure you're right, but that won't stop them spending millions on
consultancy fees before they drop the idea.

|| Who is going to pay for all these black-boxes
|| to be retro-fitted to every vehicle in the UK?? The motorist I
|| suppose.

Got it in one.

|| This is all very well if they abolish VED to compensate.

Now you're dreaming. Since when has a Govt ever imposed one tax only to
remove another so people don't have to pay twice? That would be like my
Labrador saying "No thanks, I've already eaten."

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.


 
On or around Mon, 7 Aug 2006 18:49:49 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2006-08-07, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'd not be worried about tolls on motorways, provided we had enough, decent
>> motorways - what I object to is a uniform road pricing system that you pay
>> per mile of road use regardless of where you use the roads or why.
>
>I have four cars, can only drive one at once, and work from home so
>don't drive daily so VED is PITA, but I don't believe for a moment
>that VED will be scrapped. That's been mentioned in some of the blurb
>about toll roads but we'll end up with toll roads *and* VED. I don't
>think I'm being particularly cynical either!

nor do I. I can see us having toll roads, expensive petrol *and* VED, and
the roads still being crap.

taxing the petrol is OK up to a point. It'd work better for you and I,
having many vehicles and only using one at a time. However, it'd increase
the tax bills for everyone, since I'd be charging more for taking the
anklebiters to school, for just one example. That and increase the price of
everything due to the transport costing more.

either that or people like me and the transport industry would have to be
able to get rebated fuel.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There is plenty of time to win this game, and to thrash the Spaniards
too" Sir Francis Drake (1540? - 1596) Attr. saying when the Armarda was
sighted, 20th July 1588
 
On or around Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:33:54 +0100, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>
>"Dave Liquorice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:39:26 +0100, Huw wrote:
>>
>>>> Many already voluntarly carry such a device, it's called a mobile
>>>> phone.
>>>
>>> That only works if it is switched on and used.
>>
>> Switched on yes, used no.
>>
>>> It cannot yet limit your civil liberty or raise revenue based on where
>>> you are.
>>
>> It wouldn't be a very big step to take and a lot easier for the populace
>> to swallow than an implant.
>>
>
>I don't know about you but I find even the most compact of phones hard to
>swallow. No doubt with nanotechnology such devices could be incorporated in
>some kind of easy to swallow bolus.
>Seriously, such a device would be next to useless if it were optionally left
>at home or switched off, so it won't be.

a tracker that you swallow would have a limited working life anyway, except
for the anally retentive types.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There is plenty of time to win this game, and to thrash the Spaniards
too" Sir Francis Drake (1540? - 1596) Attr. saying when the Armarda was
sighted, 20th July 1588
 

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:33:54 +0100, "Huw"
> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>
>>"Dave Liquorice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:39:26 +0100, Huw wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Many already voluntarly carry such a device, it's called a mobile
>>>>> phone.
>>>>
>>>> That only works if it is switched on and used.
>>>
>>> Switched on yes, used no.
>>>
>>>> It cannot yet limit your civil liberty or raise revenue based on where
>>>> you are.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't be a very big step to take and a lot easier for the populace
>>> to swallow than an implant.
>>>
>>
>>I don't know about you but I find even the most compact of phones hard to
>>swallow. No doubt with nanotechnology such devices could be incorporated
>>in
>>some kind of easy to swallow bolus.
>>Seriously, such a device would be next to useless if it were optionally
>>left
>>at home or switched off, so it won't be.
>
> a tracker that you swallow would have a limited working life anyway,
> except
> for the anally retentive types.

It could be genetically engineered to stick to the stomach or gut lining,
assuming the human stomach does not retain a bolus in the same way as one of
four cow stomachs does. Not sure which mind you, the reticulum, rumen,
omasum or the abomasum.

Huw


 
On 2006-08-07, Huw <hedydd> wrote:

> It could be genetically engineered to stick to the stomach or gut lining,
> assuming the human stomach does not retain a bolus in the same way as one of
> four cow stomachs does. Not sure which mind you, the reticulum, rumen,
> omasum or the abomasum.

I can remember seeing prototypes of this system in an educational
cartoon, one of the characters had satellite equipment installed in
his rectum. South Park I think it was.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
It's coming...
Replies
0
Views
538
Richard Brookman
R
Back
Top