Most large cities have ANPR, and it's pretty effective in solving car thefts. Mostly it can tell the police which approximate area to look for the burnt-out wreck in, and local knowledge of the hiding spots will take them right to it;-)
The interesting thing is, it *doesn't* track all cars - only the ones they're specifically interested in. You can't tell where a car *was*, only where it went after you set it up on the tracking list. Now, I'd say that makes it *less* of a privacy violation than real live cops in cars, because the ANPR system never goes "Hm, don't like the look of that guy, let's watch where he goes..."
(outside of East Germany, and the UK) persistent, comprehensive surveillance
Neither of these countries have any more comprehensive, persistent surveillance. Well, the former East Germany did, but it hasn't existed for 18 years. The whole "27 million CCTV cameras in the UK" was from an entirely fictitious article in one of the more rabid right-wing tabloid papers.
Since I'm the only one who uses the monitoring system (Since I set it up and configured it myself) I'm actually entirely sure that my machine is one of the few not being monitored/
Keep telling yourself, that, toodles. You're sure it's not being monitored - by anything *you've* found yet...
Failing that, I'd have just hacked that employees inbox and sent a few not-so-nice e-mails to the CEO & Board. I'm not a designer, I'm a BOFH. We have slightly different approaches...
That's cute;-) You probably think you have the only computer in the office that isn't monitored, too...
Oh right, so saying "your cat is lying with its legs mangled, crying out for you to help" is supposed to make the owner feel better, or something? That's not just being nasty for its own sake?
Look at his first reply, about the cat possibly being lying injured somewhere - what a pointlessy cruel and horrible thing to say. The owner of the cat is most likely upset enough without this moron winding her up with a comment along the lines of "oh hahaha isn't it funny, your cat is probably lying hurt and needing help lol". No, it's not funny. I get the idea that he's trying to hit back at people trying to "waste his time" by asking him to do freebies. So, why did he waste over a day tormenting the owner of the missing cat?
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though.
But you don't do enough to stop these fundamentalist hate-mongers, though. So because you're not actively speaking out against them, you are implicitly supporting them.
(Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
Atheists and Christians alike (certainly the more fundamentalist end of atheism and Christianity) think that Muslim == fundamentalist, which is also not true. Yet somehow you hear them clamouring for Muslims to be constantly opposing the extremist fundamentalists. It's got to work both ways.
In the UK, there is a very simple Morse test (send and receive a short phrase, with reference to a code chart, as quickly or as slowly as you need to). You do this for *any* licence, whereas before the CW test was only required for the HF bands.
Now, what's interesting about that is, very nearly everyone that has sat their Foundation licence test at our club in the past year has gone on to learn more about Morse. Maybe they haven't built up any great proficiency (ha! I should talk!) but they're interested, and keen to improve their Morse skills. I think it's a reaction to the easy, "throw power and computers at it" attitude of modern digital voice and data modes.
There is a web page explaining how to calculate AO-51 passes "by hand" based on the passes all being about an hour and a half apart. You can estimate when and where the satellite will appear in the sky and track by hand.
For the ISS, it's easy - on dawn and twilight passes you can actually see the thing. Aim at the bright dot moving from west to east.
Not only do you have to track the moving bird with your antenna, you have to continually adjust your frequencies to compensate for the Doppler Effect.
That's really easy to do. The satellites move very slowly across the sky - about the same speed as someone walking past 500m away. On the VHF/UHF FM modes (which are really the only practical crossband handheld modes) you only need to tune the UHF downlink - the Doppler shift for a whole pass on VHF is about +/-1kHz.
Driving around Edinburgh, it kept trying to tell me to turn off the North Bridge onto Market Street. Great, except they're separated by about 20 metres vertically. Going along Market Street, it told me to turn left onto North Bridge - what, in a helicopter, or something?
Who knows what other hideous failings it might have? Telling people to drive off cliffs, or into the sea? "Oh but it *looks like* you can..."
Aha, but will that let you flash the image off the disk onto the chip? You've still got to figure out what weirdass way the manufacturer has encoded it on the "easy" installation program.
Why was it not bricked for me? Because I already knew how to fix it: Enable shadow ROM on another computer, and plug the improperly-flashed BIOS into it hot. Then, just re-flash with the correct image, put the hardware back where it was, and move on with life.
Or some idiot pressing the wrong lever who's read an article about some other idiot doing the same thing and then become SOOO sure they can never have done wrong and that the same thing must have happened to them!
Oh, absolutely - Occam's Razor is still sharp. However, in an excessively complex system like this, can you say with any certainty that it can't get itself into a confused state where it thinks - despite all evidence to the contrary - that you've got your foot hard on the accelerator and off the brake? To get it all working, you'd have to have an in-depth knowledge of software, hardware and automotive engineering - and at that, you'd have to have the skills of the car designers, and the back-street mechanic that will fix them in ten year's time when the manufacturer drops support. You'd have to be able to see intuitively all the possible ways the system could break or misbehave. It's not something you could just plug a laptop into and go "Oh yeah, the throttle pot reads too high just there".
It doesn't bother me unduly, though. I don't like electronics in cars. The only electronic thing my big old 1980s Citroën CX has in it is the clock, and it doesn't need that for the engine to run. Throttle-by-wire? Sure. There's a steel wire that runs from the end of the throttle pedal to the lever on the side of the carburettor, and a spring that pulls it back. You press it and the car goes fast. If you press it and the car doesn't go fast, the wire has fallen off at one end. When you take your foot off, the car slows down. If it doesn't slow down, the spring has fallen off. I *like* that kind of drive-by-wire.
A static test would also work: park on an incline, apply brakes, have someone pull the ECU fuse(s), see what happens.
If the ABS block works the way it does on any other system (and I have no reason to think it doesn't) then the brakes should just work as normal unassisted brakes. The solenoid valves in the ABS block have three positions - release, through and apply. The shuttle is sprung into the centre position where they just pass fluid normally, but they can be pulled in or pushed out to either release pressure from the wheel cylinder or apply pressure from the assist line.
... that the throttle and brake position logging was recording correct data. If there's a fault in the ECU or software, how can you guarantee the data logging is correct?
I might be missing something, but 2kw to charge sounds very unrealistic to me.
Assuming 100% charging efficiency (which is clearly wrong) then over an eight-hour charging period that would be 16kWh, or the equivalent of around 1.6 litres of diesel. For a fairly thirsty large car that's about 18km tank range (or 11 miles, if you prefer). Great. That would get me to work and half-way home, if I didn't need to drive anywhere else during the day.
I passed my UK driving test in January 2008, and changing a tyre was not on either the theory or practical syllabuses
Odd, it was in (about) 2005 when Mrs Gordonjcp was sitting her driving test. She didn't have to actually change a wheel, just demonstrate that she knew where the spare wheel, jack and wheelbrace were and describe what to do with them. The maintenance questions are picked from a random pool, so maybe you just didn't get asked - or maybe they've dropped it again.
Firstly, if you passed your test in the UK in the past five years then knowing how to change a wheel is actually part of the test. You don't have to actually do it on the test, you just have to demonstrate that you know how - so if, for example, you're disabled you could ask someone to help and tell them what to do. Furthermore, if you don't know how to change a wheel, *and* you have RAC cover, then you could just phone the RAC and within half an hour or so a guy in a big orange van will be along and change it for you.
That forty grand could be spent on far more useful things.
Slashdot Mirror
Most large cities have ANPR, and it's pretty effective in solving car thefts. Mostly it can tell the police which approximate area to look for the burnt-out wreck in, and local knowledge of the hiding spots will take them right to it ;-)
The interesting thing is, it *doesn't* track all cars - only the ones they're specifically interested in. You can't tell where a car *was*, only where it went after you set it up on the tracking list. Now, I'd say that makes it *less* of a privacy violation than real live cops in cars, because the ANPR system never goes "Hm, don't like the look of that guy, let's watch where he goes..."
(outside of East Germany, and the UK) persistent, comprehensive surveillance
Neither of these countries have any more comprehensive, persistent surveillance. Well, the former East Germany did, but it hasn't existed for 18 years. The whole "27 million CCTV cameras in the UK" was from an entirely fictitious article in one of the more rabid right-wing tabloid papers.
Why would a company that sells software that doesn't do (and indeed *can't* do) what I want be of use to me?
Hello Oracle, come and buy my company.
... you've nothing to be afraid of. So, I wonder what it is they're afraid of?
Since I'm the only one who uses the monitoring system (Since I set it up and configured it myself) I'm actually entirely sure that my machine is one of the few not being monitored/
Keep telling yourself, that, toodles. You're sure it's not being monitored - by anything *you've* found yet...
Failing that, I'd have just hacked that employees inbox and sent a few not-so-nice e-mails to the CEO & Board. I'm not a designer, I'm a BOFH. We have slightly different approaches...
That's cute ;-) You probably think you have the only computer in the office that isn't monitored, too...
Because it's not pointless cruelty
Oh right, so saying "your cat is lying with its legs mangled, crying out for you to help" is supposed to make the owner feel better, or something? That's not just being nasty for its own sake?
Look at his first reply, about the cat possibly being lying injured somewhere - what a pointlessy cruel and horrible thing to say. The owner of the cat is most likely upset enough without this moron winding her up with a comment along the lines of "oh hahaha isn't it funny, your cat is probably lying hurt and needing help lol". No, it's not funny.
I get the idea that he's trying to hit back at people trying to "waste his time" by asking him to do freebies. So, why did he waste over a day tormenting the owner of the missing cat?
What a noxious little prick.
Hmm, going on Slashdot (and opening myself to flames from a thousand and one angry atheists) criticizing them doesn't count?
You probably can't see my tongue in my cheek from way over there ;-)
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though.
But you don't do enough to stop these fundamentalist hate-mongers, though. So because you're not actively speaking out against them, you are implicitly supporting them.
(Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
Atheists and Christians alike (certainly the more fundamentalist end of atheism and Christianity) think that Muslim == fundamentalist, which is also not true. Yet somehow you hear them clamouring for Muslims to be constantly opposing the extremist fundamentalists. It's got to work both ways.
Me, I'm a militant fundamentalist agnostic.
In the UK, there is a very simple Morse test (send and receive a short phrase, with reference to a code chart, as quickly or as slowly as you need to). You do this for *any* licence, whereas before the CW test was only required for the HF bands.
Now, what's interesting about that is, very nearly everyone that has sat their Foundation licence test at our club in the past year has gone on to learn more about Morse. Maybe they haven't built up any great proficiency (ha! I should talk!) but they're interested, and keen to improve their Morse skills. I think it's a reaction to the easy, "throw power and computers at it" attitude of modern digital voice and data modes.
There is a web page explaining how to calculate AO-51 passes "by hand" based on the passes all being about an hour and a half apart. You can estimate when and where the satellite will appear in the sky and track by hand.
For the ISS, it's easy - on dawn and twilight passes you can actually see the thing. Aim at the bright dot moving from west to east.
Not only do you have to track the moving bird with your antenna, you have to continually adjust your frequencies to compensate for the Doppler Effect.
That's really easy to do. The satellites move very slowly across the sky - about the same speed as someone walking past 500m away. On the VHF/UHF FM modes (which are really the only practical crossband handheld modes) you only need to tune the UHF downlink - the Doppler shift for a whole pass on VHF is about +/-1kHz.
Driving around Edinburgh, it kept trying to tell me to turn off the North Bridge onto Market Street. Great, except they're separated by about 20 metres vertically. Going along Market Street, it told me to turn left onto North Bridge - what, in a helicopter, or something?
Who knows what other hideous failings it might have? Telling people to drive off cliffs, or into the sea? "Oh but it *looks like* you can..."
Aha, but will that let you flash the image off the disk onto the chip? You've still got to figure out what weirdass way the manufacturer has encoded it on the "easy" installation program.
Why was it not bricked for me? Because I already knew how to fix it: Enable shadow ROM on another computer, and plug the improperly-flashed BIOS into it hot. Then, just re-flash with the correct image, put the hardware back where it was, and move on with life.
You are a proper hacker. You're Doin' It Right.
Is it possible to learn these powers?
Only from an Aussie...
He'll just smile, and give you a vegemite sandwich.
Or some idiot pressing the wrong lever who's read an article about some other idiot doing the same thing and then become SOOO sure they can never have done wrong and that the same thing must have happened to them!
Oh, absolutely - Occam's Razor is still sharp. However, in an excessively complex system like this, can you say with any certainty that it can't get itself into a confused state where it thinks - despite all evidence to the contrary - that you've got your foot hard on the accelerator and off the brake? To get it all working, you'd have to have an in-depth knowledge of software, hardware and automotive engineering - and at that, you'd have to have the skills of the car designers, and the back-street mechanic that will fix them in ten year's time when the manufacturer drops support. You'd have to be able to see intuitively all the possible ways the system could break or misbehave. It's not something you could just plug a laptop into and go "Oh yeah, the throttle pot reads too high just there".
It doesn't bother me unduly, though. I don't like electronics in cars. The only electronic thing my big old 1980s Citroën CX has in it is the clock, and it doesn't need that for the engine to run. Throttle-by-wire? Sure. There's a steel wire that runs from the end of the throttle pedal to the lever on the side of the carburettor, and a spring that pulls it back. You press it and the car goes fast. If you press it and the car doesn't go fast, the wire has fallen off at one end. When you take your foot off, the car slows down. If it doesn't slow down, the spring has fallen off. I *like* that kind of drive-by-wire.
A static test would also work: park on an incline, apply brakes, have someone pull the ECU fuse(s), see what happens.
If the ABS block works the way it does on any other system (and I have no reason to think it doesn't) then the brakes should just work as normal unassisted brakes. The solenoid valves in the ABS block have three positions - release, through and apply. The shuttle is sprung into the centre position where they just pass fluid normally, but they can be pulled in or pushed out to either release pressure from the wheel cylinder or apply pressure from the assist line.
Do all the cars in question have drive-by-wire electronic throttles?
Pretty much every petrol car built in the last ten years has a drive-by-wire throttle.
... that the throttle and brake position logging was recording correct data. If there's a fault in the ECU or software, how can you guarantee the data logging is correct?
I might be missing something, but 2kw to charge sounds very unrealistic to me.
Assuming 100% charging efficiency (which is clearly wrong) then over an eight-hour charging period that would be 16kWh, or the equivalent of around 1.6 litres of diesel. For a fairly thirsty large car that's about 18km tank range (or 11 miles, if you prefer). Great. That would get me to work and half-way home, if I didn't need to drive anywhere else during the day.
I passed my UK driving test in January 2008, and changing a tyre was not on either the theory or practical syllabuses
Odd, it was in (about) 2005 when Mrs Gordonjcp was sitting her driving test. She didn't have to actually change a wheel, just demonstrate that she knew where the spare wheel, jack and wheelbrace were and describe what to do with them. The maintenance questions are picked from a random pool, so maybe you just didn't get asked - or maybe they've dropped it again.
Not to mention that the apps don't seem terribly useful. Have a look at the original BBC article - to quote, "The most expensive application was a proposed Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) app that provides "a masterclass for changing your wheel"." and then goes on to explain how it can act as a hazard warning light, calculate fuel consumption and track RAC patrols. So, right there you've got an app costing (apparently) £40,000 to develop, that only runs on a single, expensive platform and is only of use to RAC members who don't know how to change a wheel. Waitaminute.
Firstly, if you passed your test in the UK in the past five years then knowing how to change a wheel is actually part of the test. You don't have to actually do it on the test, you just have to demonstrate that you know how - so if, for example, you're disabled you could ask someone to help and tell them what to do. Furthermore, if you don't know how to change a wheel, *and* you have RAC cover, then you could just phone the RAC and within half an hour or so a guy in a big orange van will be along and change it for you.
That forty grand could be spent on far more useful things.