On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:35:02 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

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...

If they could figure out from whom they're buying all
them pre-paid cellphones (in order to generate the number
lists), it could work. Just keep it running 24/7 with a
"Sorry, wrong number" message in case an innocent (or
unfinished bomb) answers.

I figure eventually they'll run out of suicide-bomb
volunteers. Might as well help if it can be done without
blowing anyone else up.

Mark L. Fergerson

Do you all think that tangos are dumb enough to trigger the bomb
with the ringer or would the detonator answer first and listen for a
DTMF sequence. Hmmm? Achmed the bomb maker gets a wrong number just
as he's connecting the thing.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Active8 wrote:
[bombs]
Do you all think that tangos are dumb enough to trigger the bomb
with the ringer or would the detonator answer first and listen for a
DTMF sequence. Hmmm? Achmed the bomb maker gets a wrong number just
as he's connecting the thing.

I very much doubt they bother with DTMF decoders. I mean, how often do
you get a wrong number? I've had about 4 in my life. They'll just
connect the ringer (or vibrate function) to the detonator (with
whatever minimal circuitry in between is required - I've never used a
detonator!) and then only turn the phone on at the last minute.

It's not dumb to design a remote detonation system that requires the
absolute minimum of specialist knowledge and equipment to construct.


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:39:21 +0000, Tim Auton
tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] wrote:


Do you all think that tangos are dumb enough to trigger the bomb
with the ringer or would the detonator answer first and listen for a
DTMF sequence. Hmmm? Achmed the bomb maker gets a wrong number just
as he's connecting the thing.

I very much doubt they bother with DTMF decoders. I mean, how often do
you get a wrong number? I've had about 4 in my life. They'll just
connect the ringer (or vibrate function) to the detonator (with
whatever minimal circuitry in between is required - I've never used a
detonator!) and then only turn the phone on at the last minute.

It's not dumb to design a remote detonation system that requires the
absolute minimum of specialist knowledge and equipment to construct.



To use the unique cellphone ID to detonate a remote bomb is actually
a very ingenious innovation. No timers to mess with. The terrorist
has full and instant control of the time and place to set off the
bomb.

As Tim says its relatively easy to connect the ringer wires to a
simple circuit to output enough juice to trigger the detonator. Frist
year student project - like using a battery to keep a capacitor
charged and the ringer closes the discharge switch. Boom.

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

I believe these are already available and smart dining places and
concert halls have them so that their patrons won't be interrupted by
cellphones. I'll skip the arguments, mostly from cellphone service
providers, against signal blockers that may cause doctors and
emergency workers to miss their calls. Until some better solution
comes along I think this is a good solution. (Hint. Buy shares in
signal blocker companies.) If this suggestion is taken up perhaps
we'll get some peace from those incurable cellphone yakkers who think
the world wants to hear every word they say anywhere.

"KLM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:39:21 +0000, Tim Auton
tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] 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.

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.

"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

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.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?


CW says...

You can try to ratioanlize it as much as you want. The willfull electronic
interference of a radio service is a crime.

You need to stop saying things like "is a crime" when posting to
Usenet, a medium that is worldwide.

Also, the following web pages may help you:

Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

Why bottom-posting is better than top-posting
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

+What do you mean "my reply is upside-down"?
http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/

The advantages of usenet's quoting conventions
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/g.mccau...ks/uquote.html

Why should I place my response below the quoted text?
http://allmyfaqs.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl...bottom-posting

Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
http://www.xs4all.nl/%7ewijnands/nnq/nquote.html



--
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/