Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Yes, you have a very limited experience. It's not your (lack of)

You have no way of knowing what my total experience is and are just
blowing hot air out of your ass.

experience that bothers me. It's the fact YOU think that YOUR
installation is the slickest thing since snot on a doorknob.

I never said the installation had any particular qualtities other than
it works and has been around a long time and again you are just blowing
hot air out of your ass.

Let me clue you in - it isn't. And while the rest of the world moves
into the 21st century, you're still stuck back in the 20th.

The B-52 was designed in 1946 and will continue to be in service until
at least 2040 and likely 2045.

By your wierd everything has to move to the latest technology view point,
the USAF should have retired the B-52 in the mid 60's and ignored the fact
that the airplane is STILL remains an effective and economical heavy bomber.

snip

1,000 analog camera to cover an area of 187,500 square miles? ROFLMAO!
Homeland Security could use your "expertise" in securing our borders!

I never said anything about the individual camera coverage area or the
coverage area of interest.

Again you are just blowing hot air out of your ass.

That would be one camera for every 18.75 square miles. There is NOT
analog (or digital, for that matter) camera which could cover 1% of that
area!

Actually, the cameras are spaced at intervals of .5 to 1.5 miles in the
areas of interest.

Again you are just blowing hot air out of your ass.

You've just once again proven how full of $h!t you are.

You haven't a clue what the application is and again you are just blowing
hot air out of your ass.

snip

So once again you are an "expert" - but you don't even know what
equipment is being used. Some "expert" you are. More like "ex" =
has-been, "spurt" - a drip under pressure.

I never said I was an expert, I related how it is actually done by those
that actually do the nuts and bolts of the system. Again you are just
blowing hot air out of your ass.

Come out with some FACTS and we can believe you.

I already gave you the facts; that you are so hung up on what YOU do to
see that there are other situations out there in the world is not my problem.

snip

So you admit your company is violating federal regulations and crossing
public lands despite not being a common carrier? Where can you be
(except maybe in Alaska - and even then I'm not sure you can find that
big of an area) can you not cross public lands.

My god are you dense.

You haven't a clue what kind of system this is and again you are just
blowing hot air out of your ass.

snip

Once again you claim to be an "expert" - but you have no idea what
equipment your company is using. Some "expert" you are.

I never claimed to be an expert and never claimed I had anything what so
ever to do with the selection of equipment.

Again you are just blowing hot air out of your ass.

snip

And once again you claim to be an "expert" - but you can't even tell us
what equipment you are using. Not much of an "expert".

I never claimed to be an expert and never claimed I had anything what so
ever to do with the selection of equipment.

Again you are just blowing hot air out of your ass.

snip

Neither Pelco nor Cohu have PTZ's which can be controlled over a 1200
baud line. So even those companies agree your "equipment" is so out of
date it isn't even worth supporting.

Again, I have said many times the system is old and as a matter of fact
Cohu does still support serial cameras.

snip

And again, I don't know why you would need to modify a program when both
Pelco and Cohu can be controlled over fiber. And BTW, Pelco's control
codes are proprietary, and they do NOT give them out. So what did you
do - reverse engineer them (against your license agreement)?

First, you have been told many times the system is old.

There are in fact still Javelin cameras out there that have not yet failed.

There are still a LOT of cameras on serial lines.

It ALL has to be supported.

And you have also been told several times the whole thing, old cameras and
new, are controlled by a custome application that is a small part of a
much bigger application.

As for Pelco's control being proprietary, either the manufacturer discloses
the codes or the cameras are not purchased.

Have you ever heard of a nondisclosure agreement?

And unlike you, I DO know what I'm talking about. Pelco is one of the
cameras we use regularly.

Whooptee ****ing doo.

snip

Nope. I told you how the world is going. You can stay in the 20th
century. I really don't care.

Then why do you have your panties in such a wad?

Go rant at the USAF for wanting to keep the B-52 for 90 years.

snip

Because you are so full of $h!t and claim the world is NOT doing what I
have seen it to be.

Again you are just blowing hot air out of your ass.

I have said many, many, many times now that your experience may be different.

It is you that is claiming that what I say is being done is actually being
done.

snip

1,000 cameras is NOT a "large infrastructure". Medium at best. Even
some hotels have more cameras.

It is when the spacing between camera is measured in miles.


But you seem to be the only one who believes they can cover 187,500 sq.
mi. with 1,000 cameras.

I never said that and again you are just blowing hot air out of your ass.

snip

Ah, so you admit I am right - you ARE going to IP-based cameras.

Look you flaming ass hole, I have said many times that the system was
slowly being upgraded but you turned flame on and keep insisting that
the bulk of existing cameras can not be analog with serial control.

I know why you wouldn't say so in the first place, though.

I did several times ass hole, you were just too busy blowing hot air out
of your ass to read it.


--
Jim Pennino