Text 15962, 390 rader
Skriven 2005-11-12 10:13:19 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Kommentar till text 15914 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: looters in NO
=====================
12 Nov 05 12:22, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:
>>>> It's even easier, and legal, to jam laser guns. There is also
>>>> a product on the market that is called 'laser veil'...it's a
>>>> liquid that you apply to reflective surfaces such as license plates
MvdV>>> Spraying on the license plate is illegal here.
>> That's too bad. Another freedom lost.
MvdV> Freedom is not an absolute,
Freedom is absolute under the law.
MvdV> it is in the eye of the beholder. I do not see it as "freedom" if
MvdV> road pirates are allowed to make our roads unsafe.
So much for freedom in Holland. There isn't any.
>>>> I didn't care that I got caught for speeding. I paid the fine.
>>>> The best part was getting the goat of the CHP officer. Police are
>>>> trained to intimidate and he sure had a hard time doing that with
>>>> me.
MvdV>>> I am puzzled with this attitude. You seem to consider the police
MvdV>>> your enemy. An enemy that has the be mislead by tricks like
MvdV>>> "laser veil" and radar jammers. An enemy that has to be defeated
MvdV>>> in a war of intimidation.
>> They're certainly not my friends. Their tactics are to
>> intimidate and lie. I hate both.
MvdV> Strange. Are they not payed out of your tax money? It is not *you*
MvdV> the tax payer that has the ultimate say in what the lawas are that
MvdV> the police have to uphold?
In a round-about way, yes. I elect a representative who speaks for me. If
I don't agree with him, I'm but one voice in the wilderness. As Diane
Feinstein once told me; "we'll have to agree to disagree." And she went
on about her business as if I didn't exist.
MvdV>>> I see the police as people hired to do job. Hired by my
MvdV>>> government and paid from my tax money. These guys are
MvdV>>> not me enemy, they are working *for* me.
>> Then why do they screw you in the ass with hidden radar cameras?
MvdV> The do not srew *me*. if they screw anyone it is those road pirates
MvdV> that have no respect for our traffic regulations and that are a
MvdV> danger to law abiding citizens.
No, they're smarter than you and they use devices to thwart the long arm
of that guy screwing those like you who obey them like children. 1984 is
alive and well in Holland.
MvdV> And the cops act against those because we, the people of The
MvdV> Netherlands, made laws that give them that authority.
LOL!
MvdV>>> I thought Hazard county was a Hollywood fantasy. Your words
MvdV>>> seem to indicate different.
>> Even though the movie "Smokey and the Bandit" portrays law
>> enforcement as a funny joke, it's not far from the truth showing
>> how far a LEO will go.
MvdV> Sad really. And you claim to live in a free country? Seems to me
MvdV> you are close to a police state.
If that were true, I wouldn't get away with what I do. Instead, I'd be
harnessed by the laws being rigidly enforced in spite of the claimed
freedom I really don't have. It'd be like living in Holland.
>>>> It will detect it if the radar signal bounces off of any object
>>>> in the front of the building. You know, the multipath signal of VHF
>>>> and up.
MvdV>>> But the reflected signal will be 20 to 40 dB weaker than the
MvdV>>> direct signal. That means you have to get a lot closer to detect
MvdV>>> it.
>> That'd depend on the sensitivity of the detectors front end.
MvdV> No, it doesn't. The difference in signal level depends on a lot of
MvdV> things, but the sensitivity of the receiver is NOT one of them.
Bullshit.
>>>> And why wouldn't I know they're there, having lived there for
>>>> some years like you have?
MvdV>>> They keep adding new ones all the time. There are thousands of
MvdV>>> them. I know of about a dozen in my direct viscinity. Further out
MvdV>>> there are too many too keep track.
>> Seems like it's getting closer to '1984' than you realize.
MvdV> That is not how I see it. Freedom is in the eye of the beholder. I
MvdV> feel safer with the road pirates off the road.
I feel safer on the road when those who strictly obey the law stay home.
They're a nuisance and an impediment to safe drivers.
>>>> Sure, a visitor might get caught there, but they'd only get
>>>> caught once.
MvdV>>> And then they get caught again at the next intersection...
>> ????
MvdV> That is where the next speed traop may be.
1984...
MvdV>>>>> Here you see a picture of one of those speed traps.
MvdV>>>>> http://flits.bnet.be/questDetails.jsp?id=18
>>>> Yes, they look just like the red light cameras that we have here.
MvdV>>> The one in the picture IS a red light camera.
>> Pretty observant, aren't I.
MvdV> Not really, the accompanying text mentions it.
But you didn't.
>>>> Depending on the sensitivity of the detector, it would pick up
>>>> a signal from backscatter.
MvdV>>> The signal must be detectable. After all that is how the thing
MvdV>>> works. But the signal is a lot weaker than the direct signal, so
MvdV>>> you have to be real close. Most likely too close to be of any
MvdV>>> use.
>> As long as I'm not yet in the camera's range, I'll be just fine.
MvdV> You can't unless you have the bionic man's reaction. You have less
MvdV> than a second.
No, I have been warned long before there is a danger of being detected.
I've got 500 feet to make my move.
>>>> There is also polarizing paint for the plate. Not detectable
>>>> by the naked eye from 2m away.
MvdV>>> If it has any effect, it must be detectable. Simply look at it
MvdV>>> through the "eyes of the camera" that it is supposed to defeat.
>> And that is where the camera would be found faulty. It isn't
>> able to distinguish anything on the plate.
MvdV> If the cop makes a "picture" of the plate with a cmarea similar to
MvdV> the ones used in the speed traps, he will see that - contrary to
MvdV> expectation - the numbers on the plate are not redable on the
MvdV> picture. That will be the give away for tampering.
Perhaps, if he used a flash camera.
>>>> We're safe from search and seizure in our houses and papers.
>>>> The USSC also included cars.
MvdV>>> Measuring the speed of a car is not searching it.
>> It has been argued in a court of law that it is an invasion of
>> privacy, which is protected by the USC..
MvdV> <shrug> The USC is not in force here. We see it different.
I'm applying what you say to my own situation. I'm quite safe in my
expectation of protection by the USC.
>>>> My license was suspended once when I was 16 for having too
>>>> many points deducted due to too many moving violations. Since
>>>> I was a minor, the points system was even harsher than it was for
>>>> adults.
MvdV>>> My licence was never suspended though I have been caught a couple
MvdV>>> of time on speeding in my younger years.
>> I had three tickets within a 3 month period.
MvdV> That would qualify you as a road pirate here.
I was only classified as a juvenile offender.
MvdV>>> Same here. The insurance companies however do not have access to
MvdV>>> police records. If you are in an accident and do not claim the
MvdV>>> damage from the insurance, it does not go in their records and so
MvdV>>> it has no effect on the no-claim discount.
>> If you are in an accident, the other driver's insurance
>> company will notify yours. That's how they work.
MvdV> Not if the other driver does not report it either. It there are no
MvdV> wounded, it is perfectly lkegal to settle the matter in private.
Isn't that against the law?
CALIFORNIA CODES
VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 16000-16005
16000. (a) The driver of a motor vehicle who is in any manner
involved in an accident originating from the operation of the motor
vehicle on a street or highway, or is involved in a reportable
off-highway accident, as defined in Section 16000.1, that has
resulted in damage to the property of any one person in excess of
seven hundred fifty dollars ($750), or in bodily injury, or in the
death of any person shall report the accident, within 10 days after
the accident,
>>>> When I turned 25, my insurance premiums were cut in half, as I
>>>> became a new member of a different age group.
MvdV>>> I don't recall the details that far back. I know that I am in the
MvdV>>> highest discount group as I have not been in an accident for over
MvdV>>> ten years.
>> They only go back three years here. My wreck of 2001 is now
>> off the record.
MvdV> Your 2001 wreck? You don't sound like a very safe driver to me...
Hydroplanning on puddled roads wasn't my fault. My first and only
accident, errr fuck up, ever.
MvdV>>> with it most of the time. Now the roads are so crowded that
MvdV>>> excessive speeding is irresponsible if not impossible. Can't
MvdV>>> speed in a traffic jam...
>> Wanna bet? I've seen youngsters jump from lane to lane, cutting
>> people off and causing accidents behind them in traffic jams.
MvdV> Not possible in the traffic jams they have here. In such a jams
MvdV> cars are bumper to bumper at walking speed or are at a complete
MvdV> stop. One can not "jump form lne to lane", there is simply no room
MvdV> to go anywhere but go with the flow.
That's how it is here too and these indivduals do exactly what I have
said.
>> I simply try to avoid them if it's at all possible.
MvdV> Unfortunately that is not always possible here. :-(
Not here either. On my way back from Illinois last week, I had to drive
through Austin, Texas on the I-35 freeway to get home. There was an
accident reported by Austin radio as being in the north bound lanes in
midtown on the freeway. There's no freeway around Austin, so I hoped for
the best and continued. What I found was that the south bound freeway
lanes were blocked off so that emergency vehicles could get to the
accident. Fortunately I was smart enough to stay to the far right and
finally exited the now stand-still traffic jam. That was all for naught,
as it was noon and everyone in Austin must have had a luncheon date and
the traffic showed it. I made less time on the streets than I did on the
freeway, so I got back on. After clearing the accident scene, the traffic
began to move quite well and we were up to the speed limit in minutes. I
wasn't at all surprised to see the traffic south of the accident backed up
for miles. Actually to the very outskirts of Austin, some 5 miles.
MvdV>>> Plus that the methods of detection have improved to the point
MvdV>>> that there is no escape. The latest system is "traject controle".
MvdV>>> Camaras at checkpoint A record you time of passing and then when
MvdV>>> you pass checkpoint B five kilometres further down the road you
MvdV>>> are clocked again. Arrive their too early and you get the ticket
MvdV>>> in the mail.
>> It is '1984'....
MvdV> it is the twenty first century. We ca no longer afford tho let
MvdV> people drive like cowboys in the Wild West.
That's how it was in the book, '1984' too.
MvdV>>> Yes, forged plates can defeat that system, but the penalty
MvdV>>> for forgery multiplied by the chance of detection is
MvdV>>> substantially higher than the fine for speeding. And all that
MvdV>>> just to get there a few minutes earlier? No percentage in it.
>> That's true. My dad used to say to those passing him; "Hurry
>> up and wait."
MvdV> Over here with the crowded roads and short distances, speeding does
MvdV> not pay off. Not for a privrate indivual. Dor trucks that are
MvdV> subject to a general speed limit of 80 kph it is another matter....
I feel for you.
>>>> I honestly don't remember what the device is. It's a diode
>>>> device activated by RF
MvdV>>> And powered by the RF. Not a passive device...
>> It is passive as long as there's no RF present. RF at the
>> frequency used by radar.
MvdV> So when there is RF present, it stops being a passive device.
Yeup. In so much as the zener is excited and creates a little bit of white
noise. Still no RF though.
>>>> and all I can tell you at the moment is that I first found it
>>>> in a HAM magazine project written back in the 80s.
MvdV>>> I have seen similar things. Not for radar jamming but for jamming
MvdV>>> ham repeaters. I collected half a dozen when I was the guardian
MvdV>>> of the local 2 meter repeater....
>> Those are usually run on battery power.
MvdV> Usually yes. The battery powered jammers have the "disadvantage"
MvdV> that soonet or later the battery runs out.
Unless the person who planted it monitors it and replaces the battery when
required.
MvdV> The RF powered devices just go on and on and on until someone finds
MvdV> it.
Or they incorporate a solar cell and recharge the battery and only
switching on the device when it gets dark.
>> I've planted and found a few of those in my time too.
MvdV> Now why does that not surprise me...
Did I mention repeater wars?
>>>> Any radar jammer here has to be type accepted and licensed by
>>>> the FCC. It's not illegal to have one,
MvdV>>> It is over here. It is also illegal to sell them.
>> Hmmm. Another good black market item for my list.
MvdV> Don't count on getting rich quickly here...
Lol!
>>>> but then, from the reports I've read, none of them work anyway.
>>>> However, it's not illegal to build and operate a
>>>> passive device,
MvdV>>> An oscillator powered by the rectified signal of another
MvdV>>> transmitter is not considered a passive device here. It is in the
MvdV>>> same class as a transmitter powered by a solar cell.
>> Too bad. More 1984...
MvdV> Not at all. It is keeping the air waves clean from pirates.
Impossible.
>>>>>> It draws no current, nor is it electrified until
>>>>>> it sees that radar signal.
MvdV>>>>> Aha, sso when in operation it *does* draw current.
>>>> It can't draw current from a source it doesn't have.
MvdV>>> The source of power is the radar signal.
>> Which makes it passive until it receives that signal. IE; one
>> powered by an RF signal isn't detectable without that signal.
MvdV> Detectability has nothing to do with legality.
Wrong. If detected and it's against the law, what then?
MvdV> And of course if these things were to become common, someone would
MvdV> come up with a detector that triggers that "passive" device with an
MvdV> RF signal.
They're very common and so are the passive device dectectors.
MvdV> As with the "laser veil" spray, if it is effective, it can be
MvdV> detected by recreating the conditions under which the effect
MvdV> occurs.
If one suspects such, yes.
Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)
|