N. Thornton says...

Another question concerns spillage of gas: if youre yacking away its
much easier to spill fuel. I cant draw any conclusions but one has to
at least look at these factors.

Considering how many people refuel their cars each year and the
statistics for refueling fires (150 over the last 10 years) I
draw the conclusion that this isn't a significant problem. At
roughly 50,000 traffic fatalities per year, you are in much more
danger driving to and from the gas station.

As far as talking on your cell phone while driving goes, there is this...

|"Simons and Chabris showed participants a film of two basketball
|teams, one wearing black shirts and the other wearing white.
|These displays were created such that all of the actors were
|partially transparent and thus could simultaneously occupy
|the same locations.
|
|The researchers instructed participants to count how many times
|a basketball passed between members of one team, ignoring the
|other team. Just as Neisser had found two decades earlier,
|many participants didn't notice a woman who walked through
|the scene carrying an open umbrella, even though the woman
|was present for several seconds.
|
|Although Neisser's original findings were striking, they
|stimulated little further research - perhaps in part because
|the results were difficult to incorporate into the mainstream
|science of the time, suggests Ron Rensink, PhD, a psychologist
|and computer scientist at the University of British Columbia.
|
|'Back then, there was still a strong belief that we built
|up a visual representation of all the objects around us and
|held it in a big buffer,' Rensink notes. 'Neisser's work
|flew in the face of that -- people didn't quite know what
|to do with it. There seemed to be a general reluctance to
|pursue it.'
|
|Two decades later, Simons and Chabris's replication has
|received a more welcome reception. The team has now extended
|the original findings by showing that inattentional blindness
|also occurs in more natural displays, in which all of the
|actors are fully visible and opaque. Across a range of
|conditions, more than 25 percent of observers missed a fully
|visible and opaque 'umbrella woman.'
|
|In a particularly dramatic demonstration of the inattentional
|blindness effect, half of the observers failed to notice a
|person wearing a gorilla suit who walked into the middle of
|the basketball game, stopped to face the camera, thumped
|its chest and walked off the screen -- spending a total of
|nine seconds on screen."

Source: http://home.att.net/~jeff.dean/blind.htm




--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

Tim Auton tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] wrote in
:

Jim Thompson wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

You would have to have every phone in the nation ring every couple of
hours. They're not going to be stupid enough to have the phone both
switched on and connected to the bomb until the last minute.


Tim

Actually,they have to have it active before they enter 'enemy' territory,as
citizens there often notice some stranger fiddling with a package and then
leaving it behind;the common indicator a bomb has been placed.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:59:41 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

The countermeasure I think, is fairly simple. Every vulnerable public
place which may be targeted by terrorist bomb attacks, should install
cellphone signal blockers.

Not in the US. Intentional interference is illegal. It likely is in most
places.


Homeland security has done worse on civil liberty laws.

Compared to the cost and unfeliability of security personnel and
person-body checks surely a "cellphone safe" building, train or public
conveyance is acceptable. After all it wasn't that many years ago
(~10) when there were no cellphones. The what did emergency workers
do then? What happend when you are out of cellphone range? Have you
actually heard of anyone dying because the party called couldn't get
his/her cellphone page?

I would certainly feel a lot more comfortable if the building
advertises itself as a cellphone free location to a point where I
would prefer to shop there. A work around for emergency worker
phone access is for the emergency worker to tell a service provider
that he is at a particular cellphone free location. If he needs to be
contacted the service provider will phone that building(s) management
by landline who will then page the emergency worker. It will work
like a 911 line and is meant for emergencies only, not a mom looking
for a shopping mall crazy daughter. Outside these cellphone free
buildings any cellphone will work normally.

the show on discovery channel, mythbusters. debunked that myth,


"John Michael Williams" wrote in message
m...
Claims that people have started fires by using
their cell phone while refueling a car apparently
are false: See
http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp
and other sites.

However, the first radios transmitted
sparks, so in principle it should be possible to
transmit near a long wire separated by a small gap from
ground or another wire and get a small spark. So, I
decided to try an experiment.

I don't use a cell phone, so I assumed a CB radio
transceiver would be a reasonable substitute: The
power output of a nominal 5 W CB also is consistent
and nonadaptive, so a possible unknown (actual output
power) is avoided. Cell phones are adaptive and
not very consistent in power output, so power
should be monitored during a cell phone experiment.

5 W is considerably more than the 0.2 to 2 W typically
possible from a cell phone; the power should be the
important factor, although maybe someone should repeat this
experiment with a cell phone, which would operate at
a much higher frequency.

I used a Radio Shack TRC-231 handheld (stock #21-1675)
with xmit power on high and set on Channel 40.
The antenna was the one that came with it (about 25 cm
long). I set the volume to max and the squelch at min
to be able to detect anyone else trying to use the
channel; this was just to be sure that my brief, silent
transmissions would not interfere with anyone.

I used the CB indoors, in a mostly metal-shielded
room. Because CB wavelength is around 10 m, everything I
did was in the near field; however, the inverse square law
for power still holds, allowing that the CB antenna is more
of a line than a point source under my conditions below.


The first thing I noticed was that every time I keyed the
transmit button, the CB would switch the
light level of a nearby touch-dimmed lamp, and it
made a Microalert microwave detector scream. I unplugged
the lamp and turned off the Microalert.

Then, I tried to light a 120VAC indicator neon lamp attached
to two solid copper switchback wires totalling about 1 m
long, so the lamp was in the middle effectively of a dipole
antenna. I tested the lamp and found it would light with
10 microamps current. The CB had no effect, even if held
parallel to, and almost touching, the wires. Thus, the near
field of a 5 W CB radio can not supply about 90 V at even
10 uA, under these conditions.

I then attached a 1.2 m monopole antenna to an oscilloscope.
This antenna has a Schottky hot carrier diode and impedance
matching resistors builtin. It's home made, but it's probably
as good as any other wire about that long. I hooked
the antenna coax to an oscilloscope: With the CB transmitting,
and its antenna parallel and 1 m away from the monopole,
the amplitude was about 100 mV p-p, at 27 MHz or so. I could
not get more amplitude no matter how close I held the CB,
or at what angle. Touching the bare monopole wire increased
the amplitude by no more than 10%.

So, first conclusion: To get even a 1 V spark would take a
wire at least 9 m long, all somehow kept within 1 m of the
transmitter. Thus, it appears it is not feasible to create a
hazardous spark with a CB at a gas station.

Just to be sure, I taped a 1 m wire to a table top in the dark
and slowly brought it closer and closer to another wire
plugged into a wall socket 3rd wire ground (yes, I verified
that the socket was wired to ground first!). At each distance, I
briefly keyed the CB. I could not see any spark, even after
dark-adapting my eyes for 10 min and letting the wires touch.
I might have dark-adapted longer, but I don't know whether
I should have been able to see a 50 mV spark or not.

So, I think sliding over on a car seat, and thus generating a
possible static charge, would be more likely to ignite gasoline
vapor than talking on a cell phone while refueling. However, it
would be useful for someone to repeat this kind of test with an
actual cell phone, as opposed to a CB radio. The wires should
be shorter, for one thing . . ..

I'm cross posting to an antenna group, looking for criticism.

John

John Michael Williams

"KLM" wrote in message
...

Compared to the cost and unfeliability of security personnel and
person-body checks surely a "cellphone safe" building, train or public
conveyance is acceptable. After all it wasn't that many years ago
(~10) when there were no cellphones. The what did emergency workers
do then? What happend when you are out of cellphone range? Have you
actually heard of anyone dying because the party called couldn't get
his/her cellphone page?

I'm old enough to remember when doctors would register with security when
they went to a baseball game. There was always at least one announcement
per game - "Dr. 31, call your service."

You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull electronic
interference of a radio service is a crime. Did you read the part of my post
about signal blocking? I thought not. Go back and try again. If a terorist
is going to strike, he is going to strike. The Department of Homeland
Paranoia is not going to be able to do anything about it.


"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:59:41 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

The countermeasure I think, is fairly simple. Every vulnerable public
place which may be targeted by terrorist bomb attacks, should install
cellphone signal blockers.

Not in the US. Intentional interference is illegal. It likely is in most
places.


Homeland security has done worse on civil liberty laws.

Compared to the cost and unfeliability of security personnel and
person-body checks surely a "cellphone safe" building, train or public
conveyance is acceptable. After all it wasn't that many years ago
(~10) when there were no cellphones. The what did emergency workers
do then? What happend when you are out of cellphone range? Have you
actually heard of anyone dying because the party called couldn't get
his/her cellphone page?

I would certainly feel a lot more comfortable if the building
advertises itself as a cellphone free location to a point where I
would prefer to shop there. A work around for emergency worker
phone access is for the emergency worker to tell a service provider
that he is at a particular cellphone free location. If he needs to be
contacted the service provider will phone that building(s) management
by landline who will then page the emergency worker. It will work
like a 911 line and is meant for emergencies only, not a mom looking
for a shopping mall crazy daughter. Outside these cellphone free
buildings any cellphone will work normally.

I read in sci.electronics.design that CW
wrote (in ) about 'Cellphones and
Bombs', on Thu, 18 Mar 2004:
You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull
electronic interference of a radio service is a crime. Did you read the
part of my post about signal blocking? I thought not. Go back and try
again. If a terorist is going to strike, he is going to strike. The
Department of Homeland Paranoia is not going to be able to do anything
about it.

I am ALMOST old enough to remember a similar idea held in UK and Europe
before WW2, that 'the bomber (aircraft) will always get through'. The
RAF pretty well disproved it.

There is a finite probability that an individual terrorist, acting
completely alone, might evade all the checks. But it's far more
difficult for members of a terrorist cell to evade detection.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Terry Given wrote:

The current situation exists, time doesnt flow
backwards, and if a real solution is not found, the terrorism will not only
continue, but will coninue to get worse. Neither side seems interested in
moving forward though, they are caught up in an ever-escalating round of
murderous tit-for-tat.

OT, but I have to say I fully agree. This will also take away a lot of
the breeding grounds of war-mongering terrorist organizations that seek
islamic/arabic support.

If only...


Thomas

"John Woodgate" wrote in message
...
I read in sci.electronics.design that CW
wrote (in ) about 'Cellphones and
Bombs', on Thu, 18 Mar 2004:
You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull
electronic interference of a radio service is a crime. Did you read the
part of my post about signal blocking? I thought not. Go back and try
again. If a terorist is going to strike, he is going to strike. The
Department of Homeland Paranoia is not going to be able to do anything
about it.

I am ALMOST old enough to remember a similar idea held in UK and Europe
before WW2, that 'the bomber (aircraft) will always get through'. The
RAF pretty well disproved it.

They did not disprove it.
All they disproved is the notion that a war can be won by air power alone.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millennium
http://www.theconsensus.org

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:00:55 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull electronic
interference of a radio service is a crime. Did you read the part of my post
about signal blocking? I thought not. Go back and try again. If a terorist
is going to strike, he is going to strike. The Department of Homeland
Paranoia is not going to be able to do anything about it.



And cellphone signal blocking is localized, short range, same as WiFi.
Put up a sign to that effect in your business premise. Those who feel
they must have their cellphone access 24/7 can always step outside
the door or avoid the place. That business will survive because there
are a miniscule number of 24/7 cellphone freaks.

Anyway the use of cellphones while driving is banned in many states in
the US and worldwide. What is so different in banning their use in
selected public places. The only difference is that signal blocking
is applied universally in that defined building area, and without
having intrusive checks being made on anyone to effect compliance.

I AM old enough to remember the pre-war and the phoney-war impressions of
the population of the cities of Birmingham and Coventry about the
capabilities of the Luftwaffer.

It was "They'll never get this far."

At the same time the citizens of Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin and Dresden were
saying much the same thing.

"Zak" wrote in message
news:%8p6c.5424$EV2.35407@amstwist00...
Terry Given wrote:

The current situation exists, time doesnt flow
backwards, and if a real solution is not found, the terrorism will not
only
continue, but will coninue to get worse. Neither side seems interested
in
moving forward though, they are caught up in an ever-escalating round of
murderous tit-for-tat.

OT, but I have to say I fully agree. This will also take away a lot of
the breeding grounds of war-mongering terrorist organizations that seek
islamic/arabic support.

==========================

But we musn't forget who is to control the oil wells and the pipelines.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

snip

unfortunately its not likely to happen. Little things like the clearly
observable FACT that decades of repressive behaviour towards the
palestinians has NOT resolved the problem, but made it WORSE, seem to have
escaped the notice of successive israeli governments. so much for "an eye
for an eye" being of any practical use.

Um, Israel is backed up against the Mediterranean. What
impenetrable barrier are the "Palestinians" backed up against?

Mark L. Fergerson

Terry Given wrote:
dont they have a nice monument though?

Terry, what the heck are you doing awake at 2am tomorrow?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Do you know what the word ILLEGAL means? It is very obvious that you are
ignorant of the technical details and I am not going to be your electronics
teacher. It is illegal for a reason.

"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 13:00:55 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull
electronic
interference of a radio service is a crime. Did you read the part of my
post
about signal blocking? I thought not. Go back and try again. If a
terorist
is going to strike, he is going to strike. The Department of Homeland
Paranoia is not going to be able to do anything about it.



And cellphone signal blocking is localized, short range, same as WiFi.
Put up a sign to that effect in your business premise. Those who feel
they must have their cellphone access 24/7 can always step outside
the door or avoid the place. That business will survive because there
are a miniscule number of 24/7 cellphone freaks.

Anyway the use of cellphones while driving is banned in many states in
the US and worldwide. What is so different in banning their use in
selected public places. The only difference is that signal blocking
is applied universally in that defined building area, and without
having intrusive checks being made on anyone to effect compliance.

Damn sight bigger target and there are not a lot of hiding places in the
sky. In any case, you are talking about a miniscule little country. Try to
keep an eye on this one.

I am ALMOST old enough to remember a similar idea held in UK and Europe
before WW2, that 'the bomber (aircraft) will always get through'. The
RAF pretty well disproved it.

There is a finite probability that an individual terrorist, acting
completely alone, might evade all the checks. But it's far more
difficult for members of a terrorist cell to evade detection.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

And cellphone signal blocking is localized, short range, same as WiFi.
Put up a sign to that effect in your business premise.



An idea just occurred to me.

You notice those electronic anti-shoplifting interrogators at the
checkout counters?

Why not include a circuit in every cellphone that will cause the
answer bell to ring when anyone carrying a cellphone crosses one of
these interrogators. Maybe have the circuitry activate a different
ring tone or ring pattern from the normal call ring. Its extremely
short range and won't interefere with normal cellphone use.

It will set off a cellphone bomb or at least ID a suspicious cellphone
owner who can be asked to show the phone (any cellphone modifications
will be noticed immediately) or can be called aside for further
inspection. This will enable security people in places like train
stations, bus stations and airports to quickly screen crowds.

The same interrogating circuitry could be installed in metal detector
security gates.

Its rare to be able to go anywhere without encountering one of these
interrogators these days. A bomb carrying cellphone triggered
terrorist will have a hard time moving around without attracting
attention somewhere.

------------------------------------------------

On a different discussion point, picture the recent Spanish train
bombings (10 set off.) Had the train installed cellphone signal
blocking equipment most of those bombs would probably not have been
set off. Calls on emergency workers commuting by train could easily
have been relayed by the train's onboard PA system. Calls out can be
made from on-board public pay phones. Or can the signal blocking be
effective only for incoming calls and leave out going calls
unrestricted? Airlines blocks incoming calls. Outgoing calls can be
made from anywhere during flight through the aircraft's phone system.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:53:28 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

Do you know what the word ILLEGAL means? It is very obvious that you are
ignorant of the technical details and I am not going to be your electronics
teacher. It is illegal for a reason.


Terrorists are using cellphones to kill and maim hundreds of people
and you are maintaining that unrestrcted CP use is a god given
inviolable right.

I'd rather hear your "reason" than to argue with you about the
technical details. If the rationale for public safety is there, the
laws can be changed. Maybe you should tell to us what this cast- in-
concrete law is and that will save us a lot of guesswork and
rebuttals.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:08:01 GMT, the renowned KLM
wrote:

On a different discussion point, picture the recent Spanish train
bombings (10 set off.) Had the train installed cellphone signal
blocking equipment most of those bombs would probably not have been
set off.

From the fact that few of them went off in the station, where they
would have been far more effective, one may conclude that they were
triggered by simple timers.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

I told you before, I'm not going to be your electronics teacher and in any
case, I have my doubts about your ability to comprehend.
Has nothing to do with "right to have a cell phone". I don't have one, never
have and wouldn't care if they disappeared from the planet but in no way
will I ever approve of electronic jamming of them unless under a carefully
controlled situation for a specific reason. Paranoia is not a good reason.

"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:53:28 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

Dave Shrader wrote in message news:Xu36c.33004$po.292953@attbi_s52...
John Michael Williams wrote:

SNIP

However, the first radios transmitted
sparks, so in principle it should be possible to
transmit near a long wire separated by a small gap from
ground or another wire and get a small spark. So, I
decided to try an experiment.

SNIP

There is one other potential source for a spark that you did not
investigate.

A make/break contact in a switch causes sparks when opened. The US
Military specifies special shielded switches for their explosive, gas
vapor, etc., environments.

So, it is possible that pressing the PTT or the ON/OFF switch causes the
necessary spark. Remember the Apollo ground fire. A switch/spark caused
an oxygen explosion.

Actually, anyone who has worked in the offshore oil industry will be
familiar with the concept of intrinsic safety. This requires that no
electronic instrument shall be able to ignite a mixture of air and
inflamable vapour or gas. All handheld radios used on rigs are
intrinsically safe, making them far more expensive than the standard
variety.

I very much doubt that cell phones are buit to intrinsicly safe
standards, and under those circumstances I would certainly not feel
safe near someone yacking while filling.

So, an interesting querstion is; does your phone conform to UL
requirements for intrinsic safety? And if not, why are you using it
in an area where an explosive gas air mixture is possible?

Cap

Jim Yanik wrote:
Tim Auton tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] wrote in
:
Jim Thompson wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

You would have to have every phone in the nation ring every couple of
hours. They're not going to be stupid enough to have the phone both
switched on and connected to the bomb until the last minute.

Actually,they have to have it active before they enter 'enemy' territory,as
citizens there often notice some stranger fiddling with a package and then
leaving it behind;the common indicator a bomb has been placed.

So you're defining where the last minute is. Israel is tiny and most
of it is within an hours travel of "hostile" territory. My point about
the rate at which you would have to call mobiles stands.

You would have to disable every RF device in the nation to stop that
means of detonation. Removing RF communication from the population
means the terrorists have won. The only way to beat them is to carry
on doing exactly what you are doing now - changing your behaviour is a
victory for the terrorists. I'm British, I've lived under the threat
of terrorism (the comparatively mild IRA) almost my entire life (I'm
28). You just accept the risk - which is very, very small compared to
car accidents etc. etc. etc.

Changing laws and changing behaviour is *exactly* what they want. ****
them. The only thing you can do is report suspicious packages at train
stations etc. Other than that, just ignore the *******s and get on
with your life - if you do anything else they have won.

If you're scared then they have won. That's why it's called TERRORism.
Look at the odds - if you're not scared of crossing the road you
shouldn't be scared of terrorism.


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

Well said.

"Tim Auton" tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] wrote in message So
you're defining where the last minute is. Israel is tiny and most
of it is within an hours travel of "hostile" territory. My point about
the rate at which you would have to call mobiles stands.

You would have to disable every RF device in the nation to stop that
means of detonation. Removing RF communication from the population
means the terrorists have won. The only way to beat them is to carry
on doing exactly what you are doing now - changing your behaviour is a
victory for the terrorists. I'm British, I've lived under the threat
of terrorism (the comparatively mild IRA) almost my entire life (I'm
28). You just accept the risk - which is very, very small compared to
car accidents etc. etc. etc.

Changing laws and changing behaviour is *exactly* what they want. ****
them. The only thing you can do is report suspicious packages at train
stations etc. Other than that, just ignore the *******s and get on
with your life - if you do anything else they have won.

If you're scared then they have won. That's why it's called TERRORism.
Look at the odds - if you're not scared of crossing the road you
shouldn't be scared of terrorism.


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

The ideas are getting better but are you going to be the one to explain to
people's families that it was for the public good that you were transmitting
a signal designed to set off a bomb in a crowded place? It should get the
terrorist and the couple of dozen people behind him waiting to get through
the check point.

"KLM" wrote in message
...


An idea just occurred to me.

You notice those electronic anti-shoplifting interrogators at the
checkout counters?

Why not include a circuit in every cellphone that will cause the
answer bell to ring when anyone carrying a cellphone crosses one of
these interrogators. Maybe have the circuitry activate a different
ring tone or ring pattern from the normal call ring. Its extremely
short range and won't interefere with normal cellphone use.

It will set off a cellphone bomb or at least ID a suspicious cellphone
owner who can be asked to show the phone (any cellphone modifications
will be noticed immediately) or can be called aside for further
inspection. This will enable security people in places like train
stations, bus stations and airports to quickly screen crowds.

The same interrogating circuitry could be installed in metal detector
security gates.

Its rare to be able to go anywhere without encountering one of these
interrogators these days. A bomb carrying cellphone triggered
terrorist will have a hard time moving around without attracting
attention somewhere.

------------------------------------------------

On a different discussion point, picture the recent Spanish train
bombings (10 set off.) Had the train installed cellphone signal
blocking equipment most of those bombs would probably not have been
set off. Calls on emergency workers commuting by train could easily
have been relayed by the train's onboard PA system. Calls out can be
made from on-board public pay phones. Or can the signal blocking be
effective only for incoming calls and leave out going calls
unrestricted? Airlines blocks incoming calls. Outgoing calls can be
made from anywhere during flight through the aircraft's phone system.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 21:38:29 -0500, Ben Bradley
wrote:

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna,

( I suppose this is on RRAA because cell phones have antennas )

sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.basics, Jim Thompson
wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

Call phones have become the trigger of choice for terrorist bombs.

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

This might already be illegal there (not that that would stop a
government). I've heard that various parts of Europe have much
stronger privacy laws than the US, so there's little or no
telemarketing.

ROTFLMAO!

Of course, in the USA, one could put the cell number on the
national DO-NOT-CALL list, then only an "illegal" telemarketer would
trigger the bomb.
Or Church, politician, or charity, or any other 501C3 orginization, or
.....


Bombers might figure ways around this (especially if they search
Usenet), such as a cellphone answering circuit and a "dee tee em eff"
decoding circuit. I wouldn't want to spell it out for them...

I'd think that would be a given. Oops...wrong number.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


...Jim Thompson

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

Mark wrote,

Jan Panteltje wrote:

snip

unfortunately its not likely to happen. Little things like the clearly
observable FACT that decades of repressive behaviour towards the
palestinians has NOT resolved the problem, but made it WORSE, seem to have
escaped the notice of successive israeli governments. so much for "an eye
for an eye" being of any practical use.

Um, Israel is backed up against the Mediterranean. What
impenetrable barrier are the "Palestinians" backed up against?

Mark L. Fergerson



Israeli fanaticism.

Tom Donaly

New anti-terrorist weapon = telemarketers. They call everybody.
Should wipe
out the bomb makers in about a week.

Dave Head

Not if they're on the Do Not Call list ;)
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Please add me to the Do Not Bomb list! Aren't all terrorists required to
avoid
bombing those registered? Just like telemarketers?

David

Changing laws and changing behaviour is *exactly* what they want. ****
them. The only thing you can do is report suspicious packages at train
stations etc. Other than that, just ignore the *******s and get on
with your life - if you do anything else they have won.

If you're scared then they have won. That's why it's called TERRORism.
Look at the odds - if you're not scared of crossing the road you
shouldn't be scared of terrorism.


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

A voice in the wilderness! Very well put.

David

I noticed that the appearance of the no cell phone signs came around
the
same time that gas stations started running audio commercials through
speakers at the pump.

Interesting observation.

we dont have audio commercials at the pump here in New Zealand
(thankfully),
but we do have the no-cellphone signs though. It is likely to be no more
than corporate paranoia - can we get our asses sued off if we dont tell
people to do this.......I suggest we blame the lawyers


Cellphones can only ignite gasoline fumes in the vicinity of
cars prone to unintended acceleration.

David

I read in sci.electronics.design that David Williams ddR_E_M_O_V_Ewilli
wrote (in )
about 'Cellphones and Bombs', on Thu, 18 Mar 2004:
Aren't all terrorists required to
avoid bombing those registered?

Sounds like the sort of law they pass in France. Or Tennessee. (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:04:42 -0500, David Williams wrote:

New anti-terrorist weapon = telemarketers. They call everybody.
Should wipe
out the bomb makers in about a week.

Dave Head

Not if they're on the Do Not Call list ;)
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Please add me to the Do Not Bomb list! Aren't all terrorists required to
avoid
bombing those registered? Just like telemarketers?

David

ROFL. Yeah, but the list is only updated quarterly, the tangos are
only required to update every month, and if you're already a
customer, they can still bomb you until you request that they put
you on their corporate DNB list.

With the high quality urethane wheels available, I think all those
dunes, nuked into glass, would make an excellent skate park. The
flat areas would be perfect for R/C parks and rocket launches.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

Active8 wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:08:33 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

ROTFLMAO!

...Jim Thompson

Had the liberals not f'd everything up, this would've been a common
counter-terror measure. You place radio transmitters at sensitive
locations to blow up car bombs before they got close enough to do
damage. The theory is that if the tango pusses out, another tango
remote detonates the bomb, so all bombs have a radio failsafe.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
-----------
Doesn't work, they are set off with a touch tone code AFTER the
phone answers.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

Uh, a local Pastor's douche-bag wife recently backed over a BP
station clerk here (while he was measuring the pumps) and drove off.
He's in friggin' pain. Cops pulled the snotty bitch over and she
claimed she didn't know she'd run over him. Was it the cell phone or
the blaring xtian music?
--
Best Regards,
Mike

A new type of cellphone bomb!

David

I read in sci.electronics.design that The Captain
wrote (in ) about 'CB
Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Thu, 18 Mar 2004:
All handheld radios used on rigs are
intrinsically safe, making them far more expensive than the standard
variety.

But do they NEED to be that costly or is that what the market will
stand?

I very much doubt that cell phones are buit to intrinsicly safe
standards, and under those circumstances I would certainly not feel safe
near someone yacking while filling.

So, an interesting querstion is; does your phone conform to UL
requirements for intrinsic safety? And if not, why are you using it in
an area where an explosive gas air mixture is possible?

We are effectively discussing whether there are any grounds for
requiring cell-phones, non-intrinsically safe, to be switched off, or
not used, at gas stations. So far, the numbers suggest that the hazard
is minute and the risk is also minute.

There is a relatively new philosophy being applied to safety standards,
including UL standards. It's called 'hazard-based', and requires a
logical chain of reasoning to justify every provision of a standard.
This is likely to result in significant changes to such standards over
the next decade or so. Many current standards have 'just growed' over
many years, and in some cases no-one knows why a certain provision is
included.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:18:54 GMT, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Active8 wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:08:33 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

ROTFLMAO!

...Jim Thompson

Had the liberals not f'd everything up, this would've been a common
counter-terror measure. You place radio transmitters at sensitive
locations to blow up car bombs before they got close enough to do
damage. The theory is that if the tango pusses out, another tango
remote detonates the bomb, so all bombs have a radio failsafe.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
-----------
Doesn't work, they are set off with a touch tone code AFTER the
phone answers.

-Steve

Read the thread.

Now read this post.

car bomb - driver activated - needs no cell phone.

driver - chickens out - someone else remote detonates.

Doesn't work, they are set off with a touch tone code AFTER the
phone answers.

-Steve

Is that why counterterror units had the system designed some 20 yrs
ago?

Someone else seems to think the T's aren't using DTMF. Does the
phone answer itself?
--
Best Regards,
Mike

"Tim Auton" tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] wrote in message
...
Jim Thompson wrote:

I was struck by a thought when I heard the latest Palestinian
terrorist trick is to send a kid through the border with a back-pack
bomb triggered by a cell phone....

The Israelis should get a telemarketer's speed dialer and constantly
dial away... boom... boom... boom...

You would have to have every phone in the nation ring every couple of
hours. They're not going to be stupid enough to have the phone both
switched on and connected to the bomb until the last minute.


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

this will probably go down like a cup of cold sick, but:

a better technique would be for the israeli government to pull their heads
in, and start acting like humans instead of nazis (deliberate comparison - I
am continually astounded that this behaviour comes from a people who
survived the Holocaust - surely the darkest moment in human history).

Actually attempt to reach a meaningful peace settlement, thereby getting
on-side with the bulk of the palestinian population, most of whom just want
to get on with their lives.

this would of course not deter the individual fanatical palestinian
lunatics, but would seriously erode their support base. The individual
nutters could be whacked one at a time (dont blow up an entire apartment
building killing dozens of kids to get one suicide bomber - that doesnt
help, and is no better than the suicide bombers behaviour).

No, I am NOT an apologist for suicide bombers - not those that target
civilians at any rate. I find it odd that its not OK for suicide bombers to
kill soldiers though, but it is OK for soldiers to kill suicide bombers

unfortunately its not likely to happen. Little things like the clearly
observable FACT that decades of repressive behaviour towards the
palestinians has NOT resolved the problem, but made it WORSE, seem to have
escaped the notice of successive israeli governments. so much for "an eye
for an eye" being of any practical use.

I am not interested in arguments about whether or not Israel should exist
(it does), who was originally right or wrong (6-day war etc) or any other
pointless arguments. The current situation exists, time doesnt flow
backwards, and if a real solution is not found, the terrorism will not only
continue, but will coninue to get worse. Neither side seems interested in
moving forward though, they are caught up in an ever-escalating round of
murderous tit-for-tat.

France, Spain and Britain on the other hand have endured terrorism for
decades, pretty much without resorting to such behaviour (bloody sunday is
probably a good example of the brits losing the plot, and its pretty clear
that it was a BAD idea)

"DarkMatter" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:26:54 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
Gave us:

I noticed that the appearance of the no cell phone signs came around the
same time that gas stations started running audio commercials through
speakers at the pump.

Interesting observation.

we dont have audio commercials at the pump here in New Zealand (thankfully),
but we do have the no-cellphone signs though. It is likely to be no more
than corporate paranoia - can we get our asses sued off if we dont tell
people to do this.......I suggest we blame the lawyers

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:57:15 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

. I don't have one, never
have and wouldn't care if they disappeared from the planet but in no way
will I ever approve of electronic jamming of them

Just like the Pope is an expert on sex and birth control. He ain't
got any either. Aka Everyone should make babies but don't expect His
Holiness to help you with the consequences of bringing one into the
world. Ergo, everyone should have unrestricted useage to all the toys
of modern technology. If they can be used to blow people up, tough,
that's a price worth paying for freedom and democracy.

unless under a carefully
controlled situation for a specific reason.

Which is exactly what is being proposed. Specific denial in specific
and limited public places. They don't allow you to bring box cutters
and nail clippers on air flights and these are pretty lame threats.
What's so different from not letting you have a live device that can
be a remote bomb trigger when you are in specific high value targets
- crowded public places where it will cause the greatest carnage.

There are more than enough existing examples of cellphone use denial
to poke holes into whatever "the full weight of the (unquoted) law"
injunction you are threatening with eternal damnation in hell. As we
speak Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC, is making big changes to
the communications laws. What's so untouchable about changes to
whatever (unquoted) law there may be on limiting cellphone access.

One more example is the rule that you, whether you are on staff or a
visitor, do not bring a camera equipped cellphone into certain
business premises. My earlier comment on telephone use in commercial
aircraft. Cellphone bans in places like concert halls. Cellphone
check-in in snotty restaurants. These are all denial of use. Jamming
is just one form of it.

This is a public policy matter and you seem incapable of
distinguishing between the two issues. This is not a technology issue
and its obvious you know squat about electronics. Technology created
an unintended and real public danger in that cellphones are very
easily modified and a reliable way to set off bombs. We are exploring
technology solutions to remedy that. I have thrown open some ideas.
I made no claim that they are the solutions. You haven't suggested
any alternatives. Meanwhile blowing up innocent people is perfectly
acceptable to you so long as these same innocent people can use their
cellphone anywhere 24/7.

To the objections from other posts; of course a determined terrorist
will always get through. Who can stop one who is willing to blow
himself up. Technology solutions will never solve everything and for
every solution there is always another counter measure. That's why we
all still have jobs to go to. But if we have a fairly simple
preventive measure coupled with an equally simple screening process we
can eliminate suspecting everyone and concentrate on the small number
of likely suspects and make it harder for terrorists to plant bombs at
will and at random.

Aaah, what the heck. Only CW seems to have objections. Who cares.

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com wrote in message
...

CW says...

Better not open your door or have someone else open theirs next
to yu then. That dome light switch might get you.

:)

The Petroleum Equipment Institute reports that there have been 150
US pump fires in the last 10 years. (fires, not deaths. Most pump
fires don't kill anyone) Compare that to the roughly 500,000 auto
accident deaths, roughly 500,000 medical error deaths, and roughly
300,000 influenza deaths during that same period.

people have strange ideas of what constitutes a risk, your stats being a
good example. Tumours from cellphones is a doozy, especially when the people
with the cellphones are using them while driving kinetic weapons carrying
20-50L of highly flammable dreadfully toxic petrol.

I have seen pictures of a static-triggered fire (utterly destroyed a newish
mitsy station wagon) at a BP in Hamilton, NZ, on the counter. No suggestions
about how to avoid it of course.

A similar effect shows up with occupational safety - people have a level of
risk with which they are happy. Make something safer, and people do more
dangerous things. The example I recall is fall arresters used on
scaffolding - after all staff were required to use (re-usable, not one-shot)
fall arrestors, injuries at one firm in NZ went UP, because staff were
playing silly buggers all the time and leaping off the scaffolding for
fun.......

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:12:08 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

The ideas are getting better but are you going to be the one to explain to
people's families that it was for the public good that you were transmitting
a signal designed to set off a bomb in a crowded place? It should get the
terrorist and the couple of dozen people behind him waiting to get through
the check point.

I can't make out any logic in what you have written. Are you also
plain English challenged besides being technology, legal knowledge and
public policy challenged?