you Brits are f***ed

Yes but in Switzerland even bicycles are registered yet they have the
highest gun count per head of population anywhere that I am aware of.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes

except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I may be wrong but I don't think many hit and run drivers get away
> undetected these days. Also uninsured drivers have now been dealt with
along
> with untaxed vehicles.
> The erosion of civil liberty from the loss of motoring privacy and freedom
> from being spied on is just part of a bigger picture which is no problem
as
> long as the Government is benign and benevolent. The easier it is for the
> powers that be to regulate the population then the higher the temptation
for
> any Government to try to use those powers for their own end. The American
> constitution allows its citizens to bear arms partly for that particular
> reason, so they can defend themselves from a malevolent central power. We
> should never take our liberty for granted as once it is lost it is
extremely
> costly to regain. Just look at the state of a lot of countries coming out
of
> oppressive government around the globe today.
>
> Huw
>
>

Larry wrote:
> Yes but in Switzerland even bicycles are registered yet they have the
> highest gun count per head of population anywhere that I am aware of.
>

Why "yes but"?

Huw

On 2006-01-12, Huw <hedydd> wrote:

> Within ten years the Galileo satellite system will render optical
> technology redundant. Everyone will be mapped and charged in real
> time all the time.

I'm sure there will be an option to avoid having it in the car, but
you pay more money. Those who can't afford it have to have it
installed to save them money, but it can still be claimed that it's
not compulsory. Get the poor, and work yer way up! Given that most
petty crime and vandalism is caused by those on the lower incomes
(much of which is because there's so many) that'll be something to
sell the idea to any better-off resisters and Daily Mail readers.
They need some hook to make it seem like people want it.

I was puzzled and rather disconcerted by the way that the normally
admirable BBC website mentioned civil liberties arguments in the first
article about it, but quickly moved across to articles that only
emphasise the positive aspects with civil liberties arguments only
present on the "have your say" pages where they were the majority
view. Not sure what the beeb's playing at there.

I wonder what'll happen if you block the signal using metal grounding
plates or whatever, I'm sure some will call for 10 years in jail as
you must be hiding something!

> I may be wrong but I don't think many hit and run drivers get away
> undetected these days. Also uninsured drivers have now been dealt
> with along with untaxed vehicles.

Also, the casual linking of uninsured drivers and hit 'n' run
accidents by the previous poster seems somewhat random and
unsupportable, uninsured drivers make our premiums more expensive and
that's all, but hit 'n' run drivers can be insured or uninsured. I
don't see a link between them.

> The erosion of civil liberty from the loss of motoring privacy and
> freedom from being spied on is just part of a bigger picture which
> is no problem as long as the Government is benign and benevolent.

The often quoted possibility here is when the BNP get into a local
council and start feeding information to thugs.

I'd add power-happy local councillers (and there's plenty of them) to
that list.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

If I were you I would be more paranoid about the government spying on the
internet trawling for people who are talking about guns and revolution.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes


"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry wrote:
>
> Why "yes but"?
>
> Huw
>
>

Larry wrote:
> If I were you I would be more paranoid about the government spying on
> the internet trawling for people who are talking about guns and
> revolution.
>

But we have a relitively benign Government at the moment, albeit one that is
intent on putting unacceptable mechanisms in place whether by accident or
design. If the nature of Government were to change then I would worry.

Huw

Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2006-01-12, Huw <hedydd> wrote:
>
>> Within ten years the Galileo satellite system will render optical
>> technology redundant. Everyone will be mapped and charged in real
>> time all the time.
>
> I'm sure there will be an option to avoid having it in the car, but
> you pay more money...

Galileo satellite system will be capturing/providing visual imagery as
well as positioning services - in-vehicle technology is not required to
track location.

I have no idea if the resolution is good enough for unassisted number
plate recognition.

--
William Tasso

110 V8 (white)

On 2006-01-13, William Tasso <[email protected]> wrote:

> Galileo satellite system will be capturing/providing visual imagery
> as well as positioning services - in-vehicle technology is not
> required to track location.

I doubt that very very much indeed, resolution of that depth is
extremely expensive indeed, and getting it to cover an area as wide as
the UK wouldn't be possible.

As an example, the Hubble Space Telescope can't even resolve objects
smaller than about 10 metres on the moon. NASA fake-moon-landing
freaks often point to the lack of images of the Apollo moon landing
sites from Hubble as proof of fakery, but even that thing can't
resolve enough detail. The whole moon landing site would show up as
one pixel. The Hubble replacement won't be able to do it either
apparently. And this is without an atmosphere and clouds etc to
complicate matters.

> I have no idea if the resolution is good enough for unassisted number
> plate recognition.

Not unless we have to put mile-long reg plates on the roof of the car
;-)

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:26:01 -0000, "William Tasso"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2006-01-12, Huw <hedydd> wrote:
>>
>>> Within ten years the Galileo satellite system will render optical
>>> technology redundant. Everyone will be mapped and charged in real
>>> time all the time.
>>
>> I'm sure there will be an option to avoid having it in the car, but
>> you pay more money...
>
>Galileo satellite system will be capturing/providing visual imagery as
>well as positioning services - in-vehicle technology is not required to
>track location.
>
>I have no idea if the resolution is good enough for unassisted number
>plate recognition.

Not unless it's painted on the roof. Satellites tend to be above, not
in front.

Alex

William Tasso wrote:
> Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2006-01-12, Huw <hedydd> wrote:
>>
>>> Within ten years the Galileo satellite system will render optical
>>> technology redundant. Everyone will be mapped and charged in real
>>> time all the time.
>>
>> I'm sure there will be an option to avoid having it in the car, but
>> you pay more money...
>
> Galileo satellite system will be capturing/providing visual imagery as
> well as positioning services - in-vehicle technology is not required
> to track location.

A bit useless on a cloudy day don't you think.


>
> I have no idea if the resolution is good enough for unassisted number
> plate recognition.

In the absence of an extension arm off the satellite down to near ground
level to read vertical numberplates and plates hidden under lorry platforms
or huge roof mounted numbers on every car with cloud piercing light, then I
doubt it. Imagine all those robotic arms with cameras reaching down to every
car. Scary.

Huw

Alex <[email protected]> wrote:

> ...
> Satellites tend to be above, not
> in front.

Which way do the Sky TV dishes in your street point?
--
William Tasso

110 V8 (white)

Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2006-01-13, William Tasso <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Galileo satellite system will be capturing/providing visual imagery
>> as well as positioning services - in-vehicle technology is not
>> required to track location.
>
> I doubt that very very much indeed,

and I hope you're right

> resolution of that depth is
> extremely expensive indeed, and getting it to cover an area as wide as
> the UK wouldn't be possible.

sure - but Galileo isn't just one satelite. There's also the issue of
cross referenced data - only needs one positive id at ground level x-ref'd
to the birdseye view to provide a complete trace.

--
William Tasso

William Tasso wrote:
> Alex <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Satellites tend to be above, not
>> in front.
>
> Which way do the Sky TV dishes in your street point?

You haven't even considered the approximately half of every day that is dark
night.

Of course it will be done by having a black box included with the engine
management of every new car and the installation of similar technology in
older cars. Street level speed cameras and police on the ground could then
be converted just to detect cars which have the galileo auto tracking
disabled. Supremely effective for either control or tax collection.

To be resisted by all right minded people at all costs. Tolls on roads
caused the Rebbecca riots and much resistance to all policing for decades in
Wales during the mid 19thC and if this is implemented then it could happen
again.

Huw

Huw

Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:20:05 -0000, "William Tasso"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yes - the irony is inescapable, but have you ever actually needed to
>> employ the services of our glorious law enforcement [sic] agency?
>
> Not employ, but I listen and evaluate their evidence as much as the
> defendant or (in a growing number of cases) plaintiff.
>
>> So far as it appears from here, the police are positioning themselves as
>> the worlds greatest data capture agency
>
> They are nowhere near, and neither will they be, _EVER_ not even the
> slightest bit close - in your wildest of dreams!

hrmm - I dunno. seems there are always many questions to answer, no
matter why one communicates with them.

> Besides this (not overly paranoid as it happens) assertion, you need
> to realise that it is NOT the police who are demanding extra powers,
> and indeed, are somewhat concerned as to how they will devote
> resources to increased expectations and responsibilities.

Oh - don't get me wrong. I firmly believe that most people are decent
enough one-to-one. Let's put this in a different context ... there are
many skilled and dedicated software engineers working at
microsoft/google/oracle that do actually do a good job - nobody starts the
day thinking "I'm really gonna screw up today."

>> - I'm a little surprised they're
>> not bidding for commercial contracts - maybe they do.
>
> The majority of forces in the UK make a fair amount of revenue from
> contracted services - if they didn't, UK residents would be paying for
> rock concerts and the like. your choice, Rock Steady Security also
> have the same contracts - where would you prefer your money to go?

not bothered really - don't have enough facts/info to make a judgement -
although I'd be a little concerned if providing contracted 'security' for
any size event means less emphasis on local law and order.

> Truth is, prolly, that there are reasons to be paranoid. If you're
> not, you're not paying enough attention. The police aren't your
> worry, though, they only do as the rest of us are free to do;
>
> Exactly as we're told.

Ahh - to summarise then, the police are merely the face of our executive,
the front-line, just doing their job - did I get that right?

The proles will always get the government they/we deserve.

In any event, the Land Rover doesn't seem to be such a pull magnet as
other vehicles I've driven - despite being fairly tatty in appearance.
--
William Tasso

110 V8

....and Huw spake unto the tribes of Usenet, saying...

> Also uninsured drivers have now been dealt
> with along with untaxed vehicles.

Really? Where does this information come from?

--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)

....and Alex spake unto the tribes of Usenet, saying...

> Not unless it's painted on the roof. Satellites tend to be above, not
> in front.
>
> Alex

That would only take a single Bill before Parliament. After all, if you
have nothing to hide, why would you object to a massive ID number painted to
your roof? It's only there to help the Police...

--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)

On 2006-01-13, William Tasso <[email protected]> wrote:

> sure - but Galileo isn't just one satelite. There's also the issue of
> cross referenced data - only needs one positive id at ground level x-ref'd
> to the birdseye view to provide a complete trace.

How many cars do you think it would be able to track by sight? A
satellite that transmits time-based signals for hundreds of thousands
of receivers to pick up is realistic, a satellite that can sight-track
even 100 cars at once on the other hand is science fiction. It would
have to use moving lenses rather than fixed CCDs to aim, and getting
that kind of precision from that far up would need the whole satellite
to be built to the kind of specification of the very expensive Hubble
(low vibration, high precision), but with one "hubble" for every
car that is to be tracked by sight.

Also I've not seen any references anywhere to any sight-based
services, it sounds like you're off on an area-51-style fantasy.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:

> ...
> Also I've not seen any references anywhere to any sight-based
> services,

Ahh - I was picking up on a story about using the new facilities to verify
whether conservatories and other home 'improvements' had been declared to
the rating authorities - my bad - I assumed that would use visual data.

> it sounds like you're off on an area-51-style fantasy.

could be

--
William Tasso

110 V8

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:54:47 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> wrote:

>it sounds like you're off on an area-51-style fantasy.

There is no wind on the moon.

On 2006-01-13, Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net> wrote:

> There is no wind on the moon.

Well not until Richard Branson gets there anyway!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

In order to read a numberplate, what is required is to be able to view it at
a relatively vertical angle, something that roadside cameras can only
achieve when the view is unobscured and the camera carefully placed,
something sattellites cannot do due.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes



"William Tasso" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> sure - but Galileo isn't just one satelite. There's also the issue of
> cross referenced data - only needs one positive id at ground level x-ref'd
> to the birdseye view to provide a complete trace.
>
> --
> William Tasso