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?