That number is a lie. The unemployment rate is not based on the number of people who would like to have work but cannot find a job, but instead on the number of people currently receiving unemployment benefits.
It therefore does not include any of the people who would like to be working, but for whatever reason are either ineligible for unemployment or have not opted to seek such benefits. This group includes young people who are just entering the job market but are unable to find work, people who were casually fired (getting fewer and fewer hours per week until it becomes unprofitable for them to keep showing up), folks who left their job for whatever reason and can't find another one, and a whole slew of other people (including those that have simply been "unemployed" too long to receive further assistance).
It may very well be the best measure of employment we can capture based on available data, but merely being the best possible measure does not mean that it's not complete bullshit in the context in which you're attempting to use it.
My 1.83GHz Pentium-M does run Windows 7 perfectly fine. (That laptop's old ATI X300 also works just fine with 7. So does the sound. And the WiFi. And the SD slot. And the Cardbus slot. And the Bluetooth module. And. And. And.)
Sure, I'd rather have a 64-bit laptop, but at the time such things weren't practical in the aspects that I was looking at, and Intel's Core architecture didn't arrive until a few months later.
The encrypted data exists as files on a hard drive. No great mystery to it.
The software just needs to be up-front about what files those are (nevermind the content of them), and that it's sharing them.
It's a short bill, and written in very plain English. I strongly suggest reading the whole thing.
The bit about file sharing is such:
SEC. 2. CONDUCT PROHIBITED.
(a) Improper Disclosure of Personal Information Without Notice and Consent- It is unlawful for any person who is not an owner or authorized user of a protected computer to cause or induce an owner or authorized user of the protected computer to make files from a protected computer available to another computer through a peer-to-peer file sharing program without--
(1) immediately prior to the installation of such program--
(A) providing clear and conspicuous notice that such program allows files on the protected computer to be available for searching and copying by another computer; and
(B) obtaining the informed consent to the installation of such program from an owner or authorized user of the protected computer; and
(2) immediately prior to initial activation of a file sharing function of such program--
(A) providing clear and conspicuous notice of which files are to be made available to another computer; and
(B) obtaining the informed consent from an owner or authorized user of the protected computer for such files to be made available.
(b) Preventing the Disabling or Removal of Certain Software- It is unlawful for any person who is not an owner or authorized user of a protected computer--
(1) to prevent the reasonable efforts of an owner or authorized user from blocking the installation of a peer-to-peer file sharing program or function thereof; or
(2) to fail to provide a reasonable and effective means to disable or remove from the protected computer any peer-to-peer file sharing program or function thereof that the person caused to be installed on that computer or induced another person to install.
Again, there is no discussion about the content of the files. Just that the user must consent to those files being shared. So what if they're encrypted?
This is about as reasonable as any new legislation that I have ever seen.
Freenet stores its data in encrypted files and refers to them with hashes, right? I mean: It's just files on a filesystem, isn't it? So, all the software has to do to stay in compliance is state which of those files are being shared.
It doesn't state that it must decrypt the files. Or that the content of them must be disclosed. It would just need to report to the user the same stuff that already gets reported to Freenet at large.
Doing so is neither against this bill, nor against the spirit of Freenet, nor in any way any significant technical hurdle to overcome.
(Unless I'm very mistaken, in which case I welcome any corrections.)
Go look around. Even here in Ohio, every decent-sized grocery store (except for Wal-Mart) has imported Mexican Coca-Cola on its shelves, made with real sugar. It's stocked next to the tortillas, not the other soft drinks.
I remember back 5 or 10, maybe even 15 years years ago: Lots of folks sounded just like you do now. "Oh, yeah. Those old HP machines were great. The new ones are all flimsy and hard to work on and break down all the time."
Except, now that we've in Teh Future, the heavy 5-year-old printers you're reminiscing so fondly of today about were yesterday's new-product, flimsy HP garbage.
I submit the following as fact:
Some printers last a long time. Some do not. Some are maintained. Some are not. Some are abused. Some are not. Some are properly budgeted[!]. Some are not. Some are remembered. Some are not.
A couple of years back, I retired an HP Laserjet III due to power supply problems, after it had printed something like 1.2 million pages over more than 16 years. Do I miss that durable, old workhorse printer? Fuck no! It was slow, it was noisy, it was expensive to power, it had lousy output even when it was working properly, it was way heavy, it always did smell funny when printing, and it was hard to work on! It was pretty reliable, of course, but that doesn't make up for the fact that it was generally a lousy fucking printer.
And it was expensive when it was new: $2,395 list, in 1990 dollars...which accounting for inflation, is something like $3,900 in 2008. $3,900! Holy fuck, batman! No wonder it got 1.2 million pages out before it got kicked to the curb.
Your memories are clouded. And most printers these days are so inexpensive that a direct comparison to the products of old is useless anyway.
However I must say that I, for one, am much happier with modern HP machines, where a neatly printed sheet of paper emerges within a few short seconds of clicking "print" than any of the lumbering antiques that morons like yourself seem to have always worshiped as time marches on.
Who are you afraid of, son? Well? Out with it! Is she married? No? You in some kind of real trouble, then? They armed?
Since you still ain't talkin', I'd guess they's armed.
Bastards.
If those thugs want your GPS history, they a'gonna get it. You think your TomTom's safe? Wait'til they've got a.357 in your face, and then you tell me about how safe your cutesy TomTom is.
List'n here, son: You ain't safe. Ain't noone safe these days. I reckon you might hightail it into the woods, but they'd still find ya. Now, don't you look at my like I'm stupid. You see those there sneakers on your feet, son? Ain't you never heard of Are Eff Eye D?
Look, boy, I want you to take this. Don't ruin it, now! Ya gotta be nice to it. This tinfoil hat ought keep you clean. And don't you worry about that all-seein' eye up at the top -- its a friend of the family, been around for gen'rations.
But nevermind you that. Now, look: You want to get lost, you wear that hat. Ya hear? And you forget about all that fancy gee-whiz GPS nonsense. And anything else with a tran-sist-or. It don't suit your style, an'way. And, boy, you lose of those fuckin' shoes or they getcha!
2: I've considered using a mix of ATI and nVidia cards on my primary machine, which is also where I play games. Why? I'd like to move from having dual displays to having three, and I ostensibly do have enough hardware to do so. But due to nVidia's driver limitations, I'd have to turn off SLI in order to make all of the DVI outputs live at the same time, and I don't want to turn off SLI.
Currently, the way around this problem is to install another GPU of a different brand. In this way, one can utilize SLI on a single monitor, and use the other GPU for one or more secondary monitors.
And soon, it looks like that configuration will carry an additional caveat. Hooray.
I've never written in a textbook, or any other book for that matter, whether I own it or not. I've never intentionally torn any pages. Instead, I've always tried, sometimes rather hard, to understand the text and the concepts behind it -- and then I move on.
Have I spent my entire life doing it wrong?
(Or, perhaps alternatively: Am a prime candidate for getting real use from a Kindle?)
Additionally, in my experience, these Apple updates happen mostly when launching iTunes.
Picture it, if you will: A user wants to play some music, download a sitcom, or just sync their iPhone. So they launch iTunes, just like they have before. And instead of getting to do those things, they get an annoying thing that won't fucking ever go away until they press OK. Sure, they can cancel it (but then it just comes back), or they can read it and deselect things, but why should they be forced to do these things?
They just want to instruct the computer to provide some manner of entertainment. Instead, the computer ends up instructing them.
This, I think, the paradigm which bothers me most: That the computer switches from being told by the user what it should be doing, to telling (or at least suggesting to) the user what to do.
Re:And yet they do nothing to discourage the car
on
The Fresca Rebellion
·
· Score: 1
Most roads have a posted minimum
Oh? Most of them?
Which roads? Where are they? How are such limits posted?
The only time I've ever seen a posted minimum speed on a roadway in the US, is on signs next to interstate highway onramps. Where I'm from (Ohio), they state that the minimum speed is 45MPH, along with a bunch of other verbiage meant to keep specific things like mopeds, farm tractors, pedestrians and bicycles off of the interstate. I've not seen minimums posted anywhere else at all.
Maybe I'm just bitter from experience, but: Segregating old devices from new cabling, even though the connectors appear the same, is a recipe for failure.
In contrast, here's a recipe for success: Go ahead and plug your 10Mbps 10base-T network device in using Cat 6 cabling - it works fine. It also works fine with Cat 5E, Cat5, and Cat 3. (I've also, personally, seen an installed plant of cabling labeled "Category IV", but I've never bothered to research its pedigree or lack thereof. However, I can say that it was running 100base-TX just fine, even with an unrated 66 punch block in the loop near the switch. I've no doubt that it'd do just fine with 10base-T.)
And the point is simple: New cabling still works with old stuff. There are some very good reasons why Ethernet is as universal as it is, and cabling seems to be chief among them.
But USB3: You say it cannot use USB3 cabling to connect USB2 devices? Hogwash. Bullshit. [grr.]
Even if it's currently true, it's crap. Expect vendors of actual chipsets (once some actually emerge...) to make this a non-issue before it ever hits the populace.
A new garage might be stretching it, but I think they at least owe you a good, high-quality fence.
Because, after all: They knew they shouldn't have walked there. It's only logical that they now be forced to pay to ensure that they won't in the future.
Most vehicles have no such things! I own one that does, which makes the argument kind of hilarious, but it's still true. The bumper shock, I mean. If you had a nice flat GPS antenna, though, you could perhaps slip it in between the bumper cover and the bumper. The device could mount up there anyplace. However, I think if you CAN access the vehicle interior easily, you're far better off doing so; sitting in the car is much less conspicuous than lying around half-underneath it.
Really? Every car I've spent any real time underneath had them in plain sight, at least on the back. Which is rather anecdotal, of course, because I've certainly not been under "most" cars.
There are flat GPS antennas available, for instance the ones Garmin uses on some of their higher-end automotive GPS units that have re-positionable antennas. The frequencies involved dictate that there needn't be much depth to an antenna at all, if that's set as a primary design criterion.
I agree that it'd be best to get the device inside the car and hardwired, if it's easy. I just don't think easy is likely to occur often enough for it to be an issue. Plus, a magnetically-attached box running on batteries can be installed by just about any random cop, whereas hardwiring it is going to require a small amount of technical expertise (not much, but having worked closely with these sorts of folks, I feel safe in saying that such expertise is not very common in those circles).
Which means either they need trained to do it, or they need to hire it done. And I, for one, am one technician who does not want that job.:)
I've had some bbq ribs and well-hopped beer, so I'm feeling mellow. Sorry to disappoint.
Ah, yes. I spent yesterday afternoon drinking a lovely oak-casked ale that I discovered at a local bar. Delicious stuff, but I regretfully couldn't quite understand the name of it over the noise of all of those Friday afterwork gossipers. I hope they have some the next time I have a good reason to hit a bar, which isn't very often.
Feh. Fuck you, drinkypoo. [1] Nobody reads the articles, anyway...;) You've been here long enough to realize that, #153816.
I'm well aware of technology like 3M Scotchlok connectors, which make quick (and mostly reliable) taps as simple as squeezing some pliers onto the same sort of 16-ish gauge stranded wire that generally hangs out right behind the car stereo. This stuff has been around for decades, at least.
But breaking into the car is hard work. Hard to accomplish, hard not to be seen. Hard not to be heard. Even with a manual written for the purpose.
I'm not proposing that they came unprepared. It's easy, from a shop manual, to know exactly what wire to tug on -- the problem is, with all of the wrapping done on factory harnesses, that it takes time to get it unwrapped enough to even get a Scotchlok attached to it.
I'm proposing that if they actually had to open the car to install such a device, they were wrongly prepared. I'm further proposing that time is probably of the essence, whether they're in the suspect's driveway or garage, a public parking lot, or a red light, as being undetected is almost certainly as paramount to the success of the investigation as the tracking device itself is.
Therefore, I propose that a magnetically attached tracking device stuck to a bumper shock, easily seeing satellites (or cell towers, or whatever triangulation they're using) through the plastic bumper cover would be nearly as practical, and far less conspicious, than a more permanently-installed (read: internally-installed/hard-wired) device. And, obviously, easier to install, to boot.
[1]: We've debated our disagreements here before, and we've agreed on things here before. So I really have no qualms about insulting you here. I look forward to your reply.
If you travel 200 miles on one tank of gas, and manage an average speed of 60MPH (which is pretty high if you're in the US but might be reasonable if it's all highway and the gas stations aren't far from the main drag), and need to stop four times for gas in a single day, you'll be driving for 13.3 hours in one day.
No sane person does this on any regular basis. And I, for one, submit that if you do do this on a regular basis, then society as a whole would probably benefit from the increased safety of having your tired ass take an additional stop during the day.
As someone who works on police cars and fleet vehicles, hiding all manner of gadgetry (including, from time to time, GPS tracking devices with satellite uplink):
Under the rear deck is a pain in the ass if there's anything big in the trunk. You'd have to unload it all first. Folks just might notice this unload trunk, climb in upside down to install GPS widget, reload trunk activity and tell the car's owner about it later.
Under the dash is the same problem. Most modern vehicles don't have any places to grab power (other than, say, a door sill fuse panel, which would be pretty obvious) without removing a significant amount of plastic and/or rubber door moldings. Again, folks might notice this bizarre-looking behavior ("Hey, man. Some dude just took your car stereo out, did something on the back of it, and then put it back in and left.")
And, as a rule: Wires in a car in any accessible location are wrapped in some manner of loom. This makes it a pain to get enough slack to do anything with, which costs more time and increases exposure for the installing agent.
Besides, opening the car up requires a key, or a wedge and a rod, or whatever. This, of course, is accomplished daily by all manner of locksmiths, cops, and tow truck drivers, but then you've still got an alarm to deal with on almost any modern vehicle. (So much for being quiet.)
Honestly, I think it'd be simplest and least likely to be detected to simply attach it someplace completely out-of-sight, even if there's no power available. Just use a decent-sized non-rechargable lithium battery (D cells, perhaps?), stick it to a bumper shock using a strong magnet, and leave.
And, if using a POCSAG paging receiver to command the device, battery life can be quite good (weeks or months). And once commanded, reports can be sent home using a number of different means (cellular, satellite, whatever), the transmitter for which can be sleeping the rest of the time.
Eventually, once the battery is running low, the device can be quickly be replaced or recovered, depending on the needs of the investigation.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting that the 8000 series is on-par, pricewise, with the Laserjet III in my example.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. :)
That number is a lie. The unemployment rate is not based on the number of people who would like to have work but cannot find a job, but instead on the number of people currently receiving unemployment benefits.
It therefore does not include any of the people who would like to be working, but for whatever reason are either ineligible for unemployment or have not opted to seek such benefits. This group includes young people who are just entering the job market but are unable to find work, people who were casually fired (getting fewer and fewer hours per week until it becomes unprofitable for them to keep showing up), folks who left their job for whatever reason and can't find another one, and a whole slew of other people (including those that have simply been "unemployed" too long to receive further assistance).
It may very well be the best measure of employment we can capture based on available data, but merely being the best possible measure does not mean that it's not complete bullshit in the context in which you're attempting to use it.
My 1.83GHz Pentium-M does run Windows 7 perfectly fine. (That laptop's old ATI X300 also works just fine with 7. So does the sound. And the WiFi. And the SD slot. And the Cardbus slot. And the Bluetooth module. And. And. And.)
Sure, I'd rather have a 64-bit laptop, but at the time such things weren't practical in the aspects that I was looking at, and Intel's Core architecture didn't arrive until a few months later.
Doesn't matter.
The encrypted data exists as files on a hard drive. No great mystery to it.
The software just needs to be up-front about what files those are (nevermind the content of them), and that it's sharing them.
It's a short bill, and written in very plain English. I strongly suggest reading the whole thing.
The bit about file sharing is such:
Again, there is no discussion about the content of the files. Just that the user must consent to those files being shared. So what if they're encrypted?
This is about as reasonable as any new legislation that I have ever seen.
Naah.
Freenet stores its data in encrypted files and refers to them with hashes, right? I mean: It's just files on a filesystem, isn't it? So, all the software has to do to stay in compliance is state which of those files are being shared.
It doesn't state that it must decrypt the files. Or that the content of them must be disclosed. It would just need to report to the user the same stuff that already gets reported to Freenet at large.
Doing so is neither against this bill, nor against the spirit of Freenet, nor in any way any significant technical hurdle to overcome.
(Unless I'm very mistaken, in which case I welcome any corrections.)
Go look around. Even here in Ohio, every decent-sized grocery store (except for Wal-Mart) has imported Mexican Coca-Cola on its shelves, made with real sugar. It's stocked next to the tortillas, not the other soft drinks.
I remember back 5 or 10, maybe even 15 years years ago: Lots of folks sounded just like you do now. "Oh, yeah. Those old HP machines were great. The new ones are all flimsy and hard to work on and break down all the time."
Except, now that we've in Teh Future, the heavy 5-year-old printers you're reminiscing so fondly of today about were yesterday's new-product, flimsy HP garbage.
I submit the following as fact:
Some printers last a long time. Some do not. Some are maintained. Some are not. Some are abused. Some are not. Some are properly budgeted[!]. Some are not. Some are remembered. Some are not.
A couple of years back, I retired an HP Laserjet III due to power supply problems, after it had printed something like 1.2 million pages over more than 16 years. Do I miss that durable, old workhorse printer? Fuck no! It was slow, it was noisy, it was expensive to power, it had lousy output even when it was working properly, it was way heavy, it always did smell funny when printing, and it was hard to work on! It was pretty reliable, of course, but that doesn't make up for the fact that it was generally a lousy fucking printer.
And it was expensive when it was new: $2,395 list, in 1990 dollars...which accounting for inflation, is something like $3,900 in 2008. $3,900! Holy fuck, batman! No wonder it got 1.2 million pages out before it got kicked to the curb.
Your memories are clouded. And most printers these days are so inexpensive that a direct comparison to the products of old is useless anyway.
However I must say that I, for one, am much happier with modern HP machines, where a neatly printed sheet of paper emerges within a few short seconds of clicking "print" than any of the lumbering antiques that morons like yourself seem to have always worshiped as time marches on.
This is so late you'll probably never see it, but:
What if you have a USB 3 device with a USB 3 host, and all you have is some random old USB cable?
Oh noes!
Better get out the spectacles, and give a good, long look at the writing on the jacket on that wire, because otherwise hysteria will be forthcoming.
(Universal, my ass.)
Who are you afraid of, son? Well? Out with it! Is she married? No? You in some kind of real trouble, then? They armed?
Since you still ain't talkin', I'd guess they's armed.
Bastards.
If those thugs want your GPS history, they a'gonna get it. You think your TomTom's safe? Wait'til they've got a .357 in your face, and then you tell me about how safe your cutesy TomTom is.
List'n here, son: You ain't safe. Ain't noone safe these days. I reckon you might hightail it into the woods, but they'd still find ya. Now, don't you look at my like I'm stupid. You see those there sneakers on your feet, son? Ain't you never heard of Are Eff Eye D?
Look, boy, I want you to take this. Don't ruin it, now! Ya gotta be nice to it. This tinfoil hat ought keep you clean. And don't you worry about that all-seein' eye up at the top -- its a friend of the family, been around for gen'rations.
But nevermind you that. Now, look: You want to get lost, you wear that hat. Ya hear? And you forget about all that fancy gee-whiz GPS nonsense. And anything else with a tran-sist-or. It don't suit your style, an'way. And, boy, you lose of those fuckin' shoes or they getcha!
just testing:
ecode
pre
1
2
3
thx
Further translation, with a subtraction of sensationalism:
Even the betas of this software performed a WGA check at installation.
That the released version continues to perform WGA checks does not constitute news.
So there's really nothing to see here.
2: I've considered using a mix of ATI and nVidia cards on my primary machine, which is also where I play games. Why? I'd like to move from having dual displays to having three, and I ostensibly do have enough hardware to do so. But due to nVidia's driver limitations, I'd have to turn off SLI in order to make all of the DVI outputs live at the same time, and I don't want to turn off SLI.
Currently, the way around this problem is to install another GPU of a different brand. In this way, one can utilize SLI on a single monitor, and use the other GPU for one or more secondary monitors.
And soon, it looks like that configuration will carry an additional caveat. Hooray.
That's just because nobody actually lives there.
I've never written in a textbook, or any other book for that matter, whether I own it or not. I've never intentionally torn any pages. Instead, I've always tried, sometimes rather hard, to understand the text and the concepts behind it -- and then I move on.
Have I spent my entire life doing it wrong?
(Or, perhaps alternatively: Am a prime candidate for getting real use from a Kindle?)
Additionally, in my experience, these Apple updates happen mostly when launching iTunes.
Picture it, if you will: A user wants to play some music, download a sitcom, or just sync their iPhone. So they launch iTunes, just like they have before. And instead of getting to do those things, they get an annoying thing that won't fucking ever go away until they press OK. Sure, they can cancel it (but then it just comes back), or they can read it and deselect things, but why should they be forced to do these things?
They just want to instruct the computer to provide some manner of entertainment. Instead, the computer ends up instructing them.
This, I think, the paradigm which bothers me most: That the computer switches from being told by the user what it should be doing, to telling (or at least suggesting to) the user what to do.
Most roads have a posted minimum
Oh? Most of them?
Which roads? Where are they? How are such limits posted?
The only time I've ever seen a posted minimum speed on a roadway in the US, is on signs next to interstate highway onramps. Where I'm from (Ohio), they state that the minimum speed is 45MPH, along with a bunch of other verbiage meant to keep specific things like mopeds, farm tractors, pedestrians and bicycles off of the interstate. I've not seen minimums posted anywhere else at all.
Hrmph.
Maybe I'm just bitter from experience, but: Segregating old devices from new cabling, even though the connectors appear the same, is a recipe for failure.
In contrast, here's a recipe for success: Go ahead and plug your 10Mbps 10base-T network device in using Cat 6 cabling - it works fine. It also works fine with Cat 5E, Cat5, and Cat 3. (I've also, personally, seen an installed plant of cabling labeled "Category IV", but I've never bothered to research its pedigree or lack thereof. However, I can say that it was running 100base-TX just fine, even with an unrated 66 punch block in the loop near the switch. I've no doubt that it'd do just fine with 10base-T.)
And the point is simple: New cabling still works with old stuff. There are some very good reasons why Ethernet is as universal as it is, and cabling seems to be chief among them.
But USB3: You say it cannot use USB3 cabling to connect USB2 devices? Hogwash. Bullshit. [grr.]
Even if it's currently true, it's crap. Expect vendors of actual chipsets (once some actually emerge...) to make this a non-issue before it ever hits the populace.
A new garage might be stretching it, but I think they at least owe you a good, high-quality fence.
Because, after all: They knew they shouldn't have walked there. It's only logical that they now be forced to pay to ensure that they won't in the future.
Also, Deaf people can drive.
That deaf people can drive does not mean that drivers should deafen themselves while driving.
Tin whiskers?
Really? Every car I've spent any real time underneath had them in plain sight, at least on the back. Which is rather anecdotal, of course, because I've certainly not been under "most" cars.
There are flat GPS antennas available, for instance the ones Garmin uses on some of their higher-end automotive GPS units that have re-positionable antennas. The frequencies involved dictate that there needn't be much depth to an antenna at all, if that's set as a primary design criterion.
I agree that it'd be best to get the device inside the car and hardwired, if it's easy. I just don't think easy is likely to occur often enough for it to be an issue. Plus, a magnetically-attached box running on batteries can be installed by just about any random cop, whereas hardwiring it is going to require a small amount of technical expertise (not much, but having worked closely with these sorts of folks, I feel safe in saying that such expertise is not very common in those circles).
Which means either they need trained to do it, or they need to hire it done. And I, for one, am one technician who does not want that job. :)
Ah, yes. I spent yesterday afternoon drinking a lovely oak-casked ale that I discovered at a local bar. Delicious stuff, but I regretfully couldn't quite understand the name of it over the noise of all of those Friday afterwork gossipers. I hope they have some the next time I have a good reason to hit a bar, which isn't very often.
Disqualified?
Feh. Fuck you, drinkypoo. [1] Nobody reads the articles, anyway... ;) You've been here long enough to realize that, #153816.
I'm well aware of technology like 3M Scotchlok connectors, which make quick (and mostly reliable) taps as simple as squeezing some pliers onto the same sort of 16-ish gauge stranded wire that generally hangs out right behind the car stereo. This stuff has been around for decades, at least.
But breaking into the car is hard work. Hard to accomplish, hard not to be seen. Hard not to be heard. Even with a manual written for the purpose.
I'm not proposing that they came unprepared. It's easy, from a shop manual, to know exactly what wire to tug on -- the problem is, with all of the wrapping done on factory harnesses, that it takes time to get it unwrapped enough to even get a Scotchlok attached to it.
I'm proposing that if they actually had to open the car to install such a device, they were wrongly prepared. I'm further proposing that time is probably of the essence, whether they're in the suspect's driveway or garage, a public parking lot, or a red light, as being undetected is almost certainly as paramount to the success of the investigation as the tracking device itself is.
Therefore, I propose that a magnetically attached tracking device stuck to a bumper shock, easily seeing satellites (or cell towers, or whatever triangulation they're using) through the plastic bumper cover would be nearly as practical, and far less conspicious, than a more permanently-installed (read: internally-installed/hard-wired) device. And, obviously, easier to install, to boot.
[1]: We've debated our disagreements here before, and we've agreed on things here before. So I really have no qualms about insulting you here. I look forward to your reply.
If you travel 200 miles on one tank of gas, and manage an average speed of 60MPH (which is pretty high if you're in the US but might be reasonable if it's all highway and the gas stations aren't far from the main drag), and need to stop four times for gas in a single day, you'll be driving for 13.3 hours in one day.
No sane person does this on any regular basis. And I, for one, submit that if you do do this on a regular basis, then society as a whole would probably benefit from the increased safety of having your tired ass take an additional stop during the day.
Best regards.
I mixed them. The manufacturer listed some DIN or ANSI or some other specification, and I couldn't be bothered to look it up.
In fact, I still can't be bothered to. But I'm in the US, and it's my fucking birthright to mix units as I see fit.
K?
As someone who works on police cars and fleet vehicles, hiding all manner of gadgetry (including, from time to time, GPS tracking devices with satellite uplink):
Under the rear deck is a pain in the ass if there's anything big in the trunk. You'd have to unload it all first. Folks just might notice this unload trunk, climb in upside down to install GPS widget, reload trunk activity and tell the car's owner about it later.
Under the dash is the same problem. Most modern vehicles don't have any places to grab power (other than, say, a door sill fuse panel, which would be pretty obvious) without removing a significant amount of plastic and/or rubber door moldings. Again, folks might notice this bizarre-looking behavior ("Hey, man. Some dude just took your car stereo out, did something on the back of it, and then put it back in and left.")
And, as a rule: Wires in a car in any accessible location are wrapped in some manner of loom. This makes it a pain to get enough slack to do anything with, which costs more time and increases exposure for the installing agent.
Besides, opening the car up requires a key, or a wedge and a rod, or whatever. This, of course, is accomplished daily by all manner of locksmiths, cops, and tow truck drivers, but then you've still got an alarm to deal with on almost any modern vehicle. (So much for being quiet.)
Honestly, I think it'd be simplest and least likely to be detected to simply attach it someplace completely out-of-sight, even if there's no power available. Just use a decent-sized non-rechargable lithium battery (D cells, perhaps?), stick it to a bumper shock using a strong magnet, and leave.
And, if using a POCSAG paging receiver to command the device, battery life can be quite good (weeks or months). And once commanded, reports can be sent home using a number of different means (cellular, satellite, whatever), the transmitter for which can be sleeping the rest of the time.
Eventually, once the battery is running low, the device can be quickly be replaced or recovered, depending on the needs of the investigation.