Did Charles actually say...
David Tenner
today?
That's not how I read http://aca-vnt.mcc.ac.uk/ScrapBook/camillagate.htm It
seems to me that he is saying that it would be _just his luck_ to be
reincarnated as her tampon, which is not the same thing as wishing for it...
--
David Tenner
dte...@ameritech.net
Burroughs Guy
> That he wanted to be Camilla's tampon, as is stated in dozens of
news stories
> today?
As I recall it, there's a tape of a phone call where Prince Charles
says "I would like to be a tampon in your trousers."
--
Burroughs Guy
Vaguer memories available upon request
Paul Cassel
> That he wanted to be Camilla's tampon, as is stated in dozens of news stories
> today?
>
> That's not how I read http://aca-vnt.mcc.ac.uk/ScrapBook/camillagate.htm It
> seems to me that he is saying that it would be _just his luck_ to be
> reincarnated as her tampon, which is not the same thing as wishing for it...
>
"January 12, 1992: The Sun prints a transcript of a scorching December,
1989, phone conversation purported to be of Prince Charles admitting to
an iron deficiency which he hopes to redress by being Camilla's tampon
replacement as often as possible."
at this site:
http://www.thebug.com.au/8sept98intervu.html
make of it what you will. I put it down to English humour.
-paul
Anthony McCafferty
<BurroughsG...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>David Tenner wrote:
>
>> That he wanted to be Camilla's tampon, as is stated in dozens of
>news stories
>> today?
>
>As I recall it, there's a tape of a phone call where Prince Charles
>says "I would like to be a tampon in your trousers."
Please move this message to alt.fan.pigeon.hohl/
Anthony "lying like an eyewitness" McCafferty
Darren George
<dte...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>he is saying that it would be _just his luck_ to be
>reincarnated as her tampon, which is not the same thing as wishing for it...
Yes, but if you can slander someone by slightly changing his words
into something stupid, that's just good journalism these days.
Darren "I invented the internet" George
---The Mad Alchemist---
http://www.mad-alchemy.com
Email sent to the above address, unless clearly marked
as wine or heraldry, will be deleted unread.
David Tenner
news:YmFydGljdXM=.e6aaf9bff40dab148d52b308358ad579@
1108131449.nulluser.com:
> David Tenner wrote:
>
>> That he wanted to be Camilla's tampon, as is stated in dozens of
> news stories
>> today?
>
> As I recall it, there's a tape of a phone call where Prince Charles
> says "I would like to be a tampon in your trousers."
As I said, that seems to me to be a distortion of what Charles actually
said in the "tampon tape":
Camilla: Mmm. So do I. I need you all the week. All the time.
Charles: Oh, god. I'll just live inside your trousers or something. It
would be much easier!
Camilla: (laughs) What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers?
(both laugh). Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers.
Charles: Or, God forbid, a Tampax. Just my luck! (laughs).
Camilla: You are a complete idiot! (laughs). Oh what a wonderful idea!
Charles: My luck to be chucked down a lavatory and go on and on forever
swirling round on the top, never going down!
Camilla: (laughing) Oh darling!
Charles: Until the next one comes through.
http://aca-vnt.mcc.ac.uk/ScrapBook/camillagate.htm
"God forbid" and "Just my luck!" don't exactly seem to me to be expressing
a *desire* to be her tampon.
--
David Tenner
dte...@ameritech.net
BobMac
>
> As I recall it, there's a tape of a phone call where Prince Charles
> says
BTW, may I mention that there is some question of:
Who taped the phone call?
How many laws did they break while doing it?
Who released the tape?
How many laws did they break by releasing it?
If the tape had been of a journalist, now... the lodge brothers would
have had a formal feeding frenzy over the illegality of it, complete
with a dress code and a band.
rm
JLB
AFAIR the call was made on analogue cell phones. Anyone with a suitable
radio receiver could listen. Nobody was charged with anything.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
Paul Tomblin
>AFAIR the call was made on analogue cell phones. Anyone with a suitable
>radio receiver could listen. Nobody was charged with anything.
And if Charles had actually listened to the security briefings he'd been
given by MI-5, he would have known that anything he'd said on a cell phone
would be intercepted.
What a wanker. Considering how low the bar is set, he's stupid even for a
royal.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began
to suspect 'Hungry' ..."
-- Gary Larson, "The Far Side"
art...@yahoo.com
>Who taped the phone call?
>How many laws did they break while doing it?
>Who released the tape?
>How many laws did they break by releasing it?
While I can't answer those questions, I have another along these lines:
If you tape a conversation (without consent) can such a tape be used in
a civil trial? If the person claims "I never said "X" " and you have a
tape of them saying "X", would that be permissible and grounds for
contempt of court?
What if you sent such a tape to a third party who might be quite upset
at what was said (and retiliate against the person you taped)?
Not that I have any plans to do this now, but had it occured to be in
the past, I might have considered it....
JLB
jurisdiction would be involved, making your query pretty much
unanswerable as well as off topic.
art...@yahoo.com
>This is afu, not a legal group, and you have not even said which
>jurisdiction would be involved, making your query pretty much
>unanswerable as well as off topic.
Oops sorry, I was thinking i was in another group (AFCA, which
although not a legal group might have tried to answer anyways)
David Lesher
>And if Charles had actually listened to the security briefings he'd been
>given by MI-5, he would have known that anything he'd said on a cell phone
>would be intercepted.
>What a wanker. Considering how low the bar is set, he's stupid even for a
>royal.
Trust me, Paul, he's hardly alone. No matter how you lecture people,
they are too important to listen -- & know better....
There are many reports of Tricky Dick and friends using Echo/Fox
and other air-ground systems from AF1, time and again...
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> Who taped the phone call?
>> How many laws did they break while doing it?
>> Who released the tape?
>> How many laws did they break by releasing it?
> radio receiver could listen. Nobody was charged with anything.
You are missing the point. It appeared that the interception
that got fed to the papers was made at a time when Charles and
Camilla couldn't have been on the phone - the speculation was
that MI5 (who at the time had it in for the Battenbergs on the
grounds of being insuffiently loyal subjects of Her Imperial
Magnificence Queen Maggie I) recorded the conversation and
rebroadcast it with a sizable power boost so that some scanning
enthusiast could do their dirty work for them.
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
JLB
>>>BTW, may I mention that there is some question of:
>>> Who taped the phone call?
>>> How many laws did they break while doing it?
>>> Who released the tape?
>>> How many laws did they break by releasing it?
>>
>>AFAIR the call was made on analogue cell phones. Anyone with a suitable
>>radio receiver could listen. Nobody was charged with anything.
>
>
> You are missing the point. It appeared that the interception
> that got fed to the papers was made at a time when Charles and
> Camilla couldn't have been on the phone - the speculation was
> that MI5 (who at the time had it in for the Battenbergs on the
> grounds of being insuffiently loyal subjects of Her Imperial
> Magnificence Queen Maggie I) recorded the conversation and
> rebroadcast it with a sizable power boost so that some scanning
> enthusiast could do their dirty work for them.
That's entertaining. Can you back it up with any evidence? Or does
Occam's famous razor tell us not to make this more complicated than it
need be?
Hugh Gibbons
JLB <J...@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
It's illegal to listen in on wireless phone calls, whether or not they
are encrypted. I agree it's dead easy to do so with analog cell
phones or analog cordless phones, but it's still against the law.
Think of it as analogous to peering in your neighbor's window or
putting a stethoscope up to their wall.
Hugh
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
-- Anonymous
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> that got fed to the papers was made at a time when Charles and
>> Camilla couldn't have been on the phone - the speculation was
>> that MI5 (who at the time had it in for the Battenbergs on the
>> grounds of being insuffiently loyal subjects of Her Imperial
>> Magnificence Queen Maggie I) recorded the conversation and
>> rebroadcast it with a sizable power boost so that some scanning
>> enthusiast could do their dirty work for them.
> That's entertaining. Can you back it up with any evidence? Or does
> Occam's famous razor tell us not to make this more complicated than
> it need be?
It was years ago and I didn't find it interesting enough at the
time to note any details. I was clarifying what the previous
poster was alluding to, not asserting it as incontrovertible fact.
It doesn't seem impossible, though.
Jordan Abel
> In article <culcqf$2pv$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> JLB <J...@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> BobMac wrote:
>> > Burroughs Guy wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> As I recall it, there's a tape of a phone call where Prince Charles
>> >> says
>> >
>> >
>> > BTW, may I mention that there is some question of:
>> >
>> > Who taped the phone call?
>> > How many laws did they break while doing it?
>> > Who released the tape?
>> > How many laws did they break by releasing it?
>> >
>> > If the tape had been of a journalist, now... the lodge brothers would
>> > have had a formal feeding frenzy over the illegality of it, complete
>> > with a dress code and a band.
>>
>> AFAIR the call was made on analogue cell phones. Anyone with a suitable
>> radio receiver could listen. Nobody was charged with anything.
>
> It's illegal to listen in on wireless phone calls, whether or not they
> are encrypted.
That's true in the US - is it true elsewhere? I've always wondered why
analog cellular got "special status" when [in the US] it's considered to
be a universal right to receive any [other] unencrypted radio signal
that's broadcast through the airwaves, anyway
Thomas Prufer
>That's true in the US - is it true elsewhere? I've always wondered why
>analog cellular got "special status" when [in the US] it's considered to
>be a universal right to receive any [other] unencrypted radio signal
>that's broadcast through the airwaves, anyway
Eh? Radar detectors are an exception, I thought.
Thomas Prufer
Jordan Abel
Is police radar considered a broadcast signal?
Ray Heindl
> Jordan Abel <jma...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>>That's true in the US - is it true elsewhere? I've always wondered
>>why analog cellular got "special status" when [in the US] it's
>>considered to be a universal right to receive any [other]
>>unencrypted radio signal that's broadcast through the airwaves,
>>anyway
At the risk of infringing the BOP, I'd say it's because the cell phone
industry had enough money to hire legions of lobbyists. From a
practical standpoint, I don't see how the law could be enforced, except
in the case of people who divulge what they hear, which is a violation
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
> Eh? Radar detectors are an exception, I thought.
Only in some states. In most of the country they're not regulated.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply)
Ray Heindl
According to the Communications Act yada yada yada,
"The term 'broadcasting' means the dissemination of radio
communications intended to be received by the public, directly or by
the intermediary of relay stations."
Police radar obviously doesn't fit. But I'm not sure how the
regulations on receiving define a broadcast, or even where those regs
are listed.
Jordan Abel
I thought it was a common law issue - the argument I always hear is "The
radio waves are passing through my property / my brain / etc"
Dr H
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Burroughs Guy vociferated:
}David Tenner wrote:
}
}> That he wanted to be Camilla's tampon, as is stated in dozens of
}news stories
}> today?
}
}As I recall it, there's a tape of a phone call where Prince Charles
}says "I would like to be a tampon in your trousers."
How romantic.
And in time for Valentine's Day, too.
Dr H
Lee Ayrton
> art...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Bob Asks>
[snip global questions about taping and legal minutia]
> This is afu, not a legal group, and you have not even said which
> jurisdiction would be involved, making your query pretty much
> unanswerable as well as off topic.
Thanks for doing that. I was trying to work the phrase "brings out the
big house lawyer in all of us" into my post, but couldn't do so elegantly.
--
"I defer to your plainly more vivid memories of topless women with
whips....r"
R. H. Draney recalls AFU in the Good Old Days.
Ray Heindl
> On 2005-02-14, Ray Heindl <vortre...@yaxhoo.com> wrote:
>> Police radar obviously doesn't fit. But I'm not sure how the
>> regulations on receiving define a broadcast, or even where those
>> regs are listed.
> I thought it was a common law issue - the argument I always hear
> is "The radio waves are passing through my property / my brain /
> etc"
That makes sense, which of course means it has nothing to do with the
law. I would think the satellite TV companies (in the pre-DBS and pre-
scrambling days) would have pushed for a similar law regarding home
dishes.
Lon
Police radar is considered a signal of sufficient revenue interest so
so as to give incentive to courts to ignore anything other than that
revenue.
Hugh Gibbons
Jordan Abel <jma...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> On 2005-02-13, Hugh Gibbons <pa...@my.house.com> wrote:
> > In article <culcqf$2pv$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > JLB <J...@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> BobMac wrote:
> >> > Burroughs Guy wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> As I recall it, there's a tape of a phone call where Prince Charles
> >> >> says
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > BTW, may I mention that there is some question of:
> >> >
> >> > Who taped the phone call?
> >> > How many laws did they break while doing it?
> >> > Who released the tape?
> >> > How many laws did they break by releasing it?
> >> >
> >> > If the tape had been of a journalist, now... the lodge brothers would
> >> > have had a formal feeding frenzy over the illegality of it, complete
> >> > with a dress code and a band.
> >>
> >> AFAIR the call was made on analogue cell phones. Anyone with a suitable
> >> radio receiver could listen. Nobody was charged with anything.
> >
> > It's illegal to listen in on wireless phone calls, whether or not they
> > are encrypted.
>
> That's true in the US - is it true elsewhere? I've always wondered why
> analog cellular got "special status" when [in the US] it's considered to
> be a universal right to receive any [other] unencrypted radio signal
> that's broadcast through the airwaves, anyway
>
Not just analog cellular, but also analog cordless. I don't want to be
an apologist for this because I think it SHOULD be a universal right
to receive any signal broadcast through the ether. The legal
theory involves there being a "presumption of privacy" involved in
all telephone calls, so it's an invasion of privacy to listen in, like
peering through a person's front window (with binoculars) or putting
a stethoscope on the adjoining wall of your neighbor's apartment.
Hugh Gibbons
Ray Heindl <vortre...@yaxhoo.com> wrote:
But detection isn't reception.
Hugh Gibbons
Jordan Abel <jma...@purdue.edu> wrote:
It's a directional beam, so it isn't broadcast technically.
It does seem nonsensical to say you don't have a right
to find out if someone's shooting a microwave beam at
you.
Hugh Gibbons
Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Burroughs Guy vociferated:
> }As I recall it, there's a tape of a phone call where Prince Charles
> }says "I would like to be a tampon in your trousers."
>
> How romantic.
>
> And in time for Valentine's Day, too.
>
Is that why royals are an endangered species?
Jon Miller
>Bob Asks>
>>Who taped the phone call?
>>How many laws did they break while doing it?
>>Who released the tape?
>>How many laws did they break by releasing it?
>
>While I can't answer those questions, I have another along these lines:
>If you tape a conversation (without consent) can such a tape be used in
>a civil trial?
In Florida no, in Tennessee yes (as long as one party knew the
conversation was being taped), and assuming nothing has changed in the
unspecified time since these answers might have been right. IANAL.
> If the person claims "I never said "X" " and you have a
>tape of them saying "X", would that be permissible and grounds for
>contempt of court?
Oh, no, this wouldn't be contempt, this would (probably) be perjury.
Note that a lie has to include intent to deceive, not merely
misremembering.
>What if you sent such a tape to a third party who might be quite upset
>at what was said (and retiliate against the person you taped)?
What you do unofficially with your stuff is up to you. Note that with
modern editing software, it's pretty easy to fake tapes. It takes a
real forensic expert to spot them, and lawyers and especially juries
can be hoodwinked pretty easily. There's at least one book about
this, name and author currently forgotten by me.
>Not that I have any plans to do this now, but had it occured to be in
>the past, I might have considered it....
Jon Miller
Jordan Abel
> Not just analog cellular, but also analog cordless. I don't want to be
> an apologist for this because I think it SHOULD be a universal right
> to receive any signal broadcast through the ether. The legal
> theory involves there being a "presumption of privacy" involved in
> all telephone calls, so it's an invasion of privacy to listen in, like
> peering through a person's front window (with binoculars) or putting
> a stethoscope on the adjoining wall of your neighbor's apartment.
I didn't think the legal term "presumption of privacy" applied to
anything other than police wiretaps/searches/etc.
Gerald Clough
The term is "reasonable expectation of privacey" and does indeed apply
in those criminal issues.
The Texas statutes refer to "expecation that the communication will not
be interceted", and the statute applies to wire, oral and electronic
communication. Wire covered land line telephone. Electronic includes
radio. Oral is non-electronic communication under circumstatances in
which the communicant expects that it will not be intercepted, which
brings such things as hyper-sensitive microphones within the statute.
Broadcast (systems configured for general broadcast) and public safety
communications readily accessible to the public and such things a CB or
amateur radio are exceptions. The prohibition covers cordless phones and
cell phones, of course.
--
Gerald Clough
"Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."
Simon Slavin
<slrnd1c1ou...@localhost.localdomain>:
Look up the law relevant to events which happen 'in public' or
'in a public place'. There's a big difference between things that
happen in a home or office (especially if you own the building
concerned) and things that happen in public.
And what Hugh is really saying is that anything broadcast 'through
the ether' is actually observable in a public place, so it should
fall under those laws, not the ones concerned with private places.
Getting a judge to agree with this is probably going to involve a
judge who understands radio broadcasting, the fact that radio
can travel through walls (excepting things like Faraday Cages),
and such things.
Simon.
--
Using pre-release version of newsreader.
Please tell me if it does weird things.
Charles Bishop
<slavins.delete....@hearsay.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 18/02/2005, Jordan Abel wrote in message
><slrnd1c1ou...@localhost.localdomain>:
>
>> On 2005-02-17, Hugh Gibbons <pa...@my.house.com> wrote:
>> > Not just analog cellular, but also analog cordless. I don't want to
>> > be an apologist for this because I think it SHOULD be a universal
>> > right to receive any signal broadcast through the ether. The legal
>> > theory involves there being a "presumption of privacy" involved in
>> > all telephone calls, so it's an invasion of privacy to listen in, like
>> > peering through a person's front window (with binoculars) or putting
>> > a stethoscope on the adjoining wall of your neighbor's apartment.
>>
>> I didn't think the legal term "presumption of privacy" applied to
>> anything other than police wiretaps/searches/etc.
>
>Look up the law relevant to events which happen 'in public' or
>'in a public place'. There's a big difference between things that
>happen in a home or office (especially if you own the building
>concerned) and things that happen in public.
Is this relevant to the US as well as the UK, since you reside in the latter?
For instance, if I'm walking in a park and while there are other people
about, none of them can hear me if I talk in a 'normal' voice level, and
even less so if I whisper. I would have an expectation of privacy in this
case. However, it might be possible to pick up my conversation with a
parabolic mike. However since this would be an unusual situation (I
wouldn't expect people in the park to have them[1]) I might think that my
privacy had been violated if my conversation was overheard or recorded. Is
this a consideration at all?
In a similar vein, the other day i came into hear my computer emitting
music from its speakers. Evidently a web site had kicked in and it was
music for that site. This had me wondering-I know that a speaker can also
act as a microphone. Would it be possible for a web site to hear what is
going on in my office with the appropriate software when I'm at the site?
Would it be possible with the appropriate software, to have it listen even
if I've left the site.
What happens to expectation of privacy then?
[1] As technology increases this might lessen and it might be expected
that others would be able to record a far away conversation, especially if
the government is involved, and this would lead to a climate of fear.
--
charles
Hugh Gibbons
Simon Slavin <slavins.delete....@hearsay.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 18/02/2005, Jordan Abel wrote in message
No, it's a matter of what has been enacted in law. I think all judges
know radio goes though the air in public places. To change it needs
legislation or a constitutional challenge, though I can't figure out a
plausible basis to claim it's my right to intercept radio communications
not meant for me. So that leaves legislation, which will probably never
happen.
Hugh Gibbons
<ctbishop-210...@user-2ivflej.dialup.mindspring.com>,
ctbi...@earthlink.netttt (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> Is this relevant to the US as well as the UK, since you reside in the latter?
If you lived in the UK, you couldn't have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in a public place because there are security cameras everwhere,
and policemen who can read lips.
> For instance, if I'm walking in a park and while there are other people
> about, none of them can hear me if I talk in a 'normal' voice level, and
> even less so if I whisper. I would have an expectation of privacy in this
> case. However, it might be possible to pick up my conversation with a
> parabolic mike. However since this would be an unusual situation (I
> wouldn't expect people in the park to have them[1]) I might think that my
> privacy had been violated if my conversation was overheard or recorded. Is
> this a consideration at all?
Yes, you would under those circumstances (in the United States) have a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
> In a similar vein, the other day i came into hear my computer emitting
> music from its speakers. Evidently a web site had kicked in and it was
> music for that site. This had me wondering-I know that a speaker can also
> act as a microphone. Would it be possible for a web site to hear what is
> going on in my office with the appropriate software when I'm at the site?
> Would it be possible with the appropriate software, to have it listen even
> if I've left the site.
Unless something is connected to the microphone input of your computer,
it won't pick up sound. Although it's true that a speaker can act as a
(usually poor) microphone, it's also true that the audio output of your
computer is one-way, so the computer can't record sound from that
port. But do you have a microphone on your computer? If so,
then it would be possible for someone to put a spyware program on your
computer and use it to record audio from your house. With a webcam,
they could of course get video, as if the possibility of their rummaging
through your personal files wasn't bad enough.
Lee Ayrton
>>>> That's true in the US - is it true elsewhere? I've always wondered
>>>> why analog cellular got "special status" when [in the US] it's
>>>> considered to be a universal right to receive any [other] unencrypted
>>>> radio signal that's broadcast through the airwaves, anyway
>>>
>>> Eh? Radar detectors are an exception, I thought.
>>
>> Is police radar considered a broadcast signal?
>
> It's a directional beam, so it isn't broadcast technically.
> It does seem nonsensical to say you don't have a right
> to find out if someone's shooting a microwave beam at
> you.
A brief Googling shows that some speed radar detector manufacturers tell
their USofA customers that they have a right to receive radio signals
under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, but that local and state
regulations may modify that right. The Act, of course, has been amended
and modified by a great deal of later lawmaking.
ObFolkLaw: You (You being a Murrican, of course) have an absolute Right to
receive any damnfoole radio signal you can pull in. You can't tell
anyone, use the information or otherwise act on it.
Lee "And you can tell people that all the way to the courthouse if you'd
like" Ayrton
Lee Ayrton
> For instance, if I'm walking in a park and while there are other people
> about, none of them can hear me if I talk in a 'normal' voice level, and
> even less so if I whisper. I would have an expectation of privacy in
> this case. However, it might be possible to pick up my conversation with
> a parabolic mike. However since this would be an unusual situation (I
Ahhhh. _The Conversation_. Great movie.
> In a similar vein, the other day i came into hear my computer emitting
> music from its speakers. Evidently a web site had kicked in and it was
> music for that site. This had me wondering-I know that a speaker can
> also act as a microphone. Would it be possible for a web site to hear
> what is going on in my office with the appropriate software when I'm at
> the site? Would it be possible with the appropriate software, to have it
> listen even if I've left the site.
No, because the circuitry won't work that way, but what you are describing
is the principle behind sound-powered telephones.
However, the folks at the TV station can see everything you do in front of
you TV.
E v e r y t h i n g.
Lee "6079 Smith!" Ayrton
Burroughs Guy
> Ahhhh. _The Conversation_. Great movie.
*sigh* It would have been, if they had gotten the punchline to work.
Unfortunately, Coppola ended up cheating. The line ends up sounding
different at the end because it's a different line.
I don't know that the movie could have been done right with that
particular line. Noise can make you mistake one word for another, but
intonation is not likely to be confused. It would have taken
different wording, but the gag could have been executed more
believably, Shirley.
--
Burroughs "I saw it on a double bill with Blow Up" Guy
Vaguer memories available upon request
Burroughs Guy
> For instance, if I'm walking in a park and while there are other people
> about, none of them can hear me if I talk in a 'normal' voice level, and
> even less so if I whisper. I would have an expectation of privacy in
this
> case. However, it might be possible to pick up my conversation with a
> parabolic mike. However since this would be an unusual situation (I
> wouldn't expect people in the park to have them[1]) I might think
that my
> privacy had been violated if my conversation was overheard or
recorded. Is
> this a consideration at all?
What if the parabola is part of the architecture? I was in a subway
station, and there were two guys on the opposite platform, under a
staircase, chatting. They were over fifty feet away, but they sounded
like they were right in front of me. If you go to the US Capitol,
they will show you where John Quincy Adams sat in the old Senate
chamber. He could hear every whisper on the other side. There's
nothing wrong with deliberately hanging out at the focus.
--
Burroughs Guy
Hatunen
<lay...@panix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Hugh Gibbons wrote:
>
>> It's a directional beam, so it isn't broadcast technically.
>> It does seem nonsensical to say you don't have a right
>> to find out if someone's shooting a microwave beam at
>> you.
>
>A brief Googling shows that some speed radar detector manufacturers tell
>their USofA customers that they have a right to receive radio signals
>under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, but that local and state
>regulations may modify that right. The Act, of course, has been amended
>and modified by a great deal of later lawmaking.
>
>ObFolkLaw: You (You being a Murrican, of course) have an absolute Right to
>receive any damnfoole radio signal you can pull in. You can't tell
>anyone, use the information or otherwise act on it.
Police radars operate on frequencies also permitted to amateur
radio licensees, so you can go ahead and have a detector in the
USA if yo have a ham ticket.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> What if the parabola is part of the architecture? I was in a subway
> station, and there were two guys on the opposite platform, under a
> staircase, chatting. They were over fifty feet away, but they sounded
> like they were right in front of me. If you go to the US Capitol,
> they will show you where John Quincy Adams sat in the old Senate
> chamber. He could hear every whisper on the other side. There's
> nothing wrong with deliberately hanging out at the focus.
There is a wonderful whispering arch in the hotel of the old
railroad station in Saint Louis. You can whisper, facing the
wall on one side of the arch, and another person on the other
side of the arch can hear everything plainly, just as though
you were whispering in their ear. Also famous for this are
several locations in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.
Charles
Alfred Green
I noticed a similar phenomenon in St Paul's Cathedral (ob. TWIAVBP:
London, England). The word 'rotunda' sticks in my mind, but I'm not sure
that the building actually has such a thing. In any case, it was up a
bit and round the outside, and voices from the centre of the room were
clearly audible. There was some debate, I seem to recall, whether it was
a fortunate accident of the architecture, or that Wren had designed it
specifically for the purpose.
Sorry for the vagueness, but this was 30(L) years ago, and the mindfog
has been encroaching.
Alfred, who wishes he had brought a duck along.
Ray Heindl
> There is a wonderful whispering arch in the hotel of the old
> railroad station in Saint Louis. You can whisper, facing the
> wall on one side of the arch, and another person on the other
> side of the arch can hear everything plainly, just as though
> you were whispering in their ear. Also famous for this are
> several locations in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.
There's a bridge over Rock Creek Park in Washington, DC, with arches
that make nice whispering galleries.
For another weird audio effect, put your head at the center of a hollow
sphere. I've unintentionally done this with 10-foot-diameter
photometric spheres, and it was strange to hear myself breathing so
loudly.
Thomas Prufer
>There's a bridge over Rock Creek Park in Washington, DC, with arches
>that make nice whispering galleries.
I think these arches were even featured in some article, possibly Amateur
Scientist, in Scientific American? I recall the author mentioning going out
very early, and testing the effect by dropping a pin in a match box, and finding
the sound clearly audible.
Thomas Prufer
JLB
Perhaps the most famous one in the UK, and very popular with tourists,
is the echo in the reading room of the British Library.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
Dr H
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Lee Ayrton vociferated:
}A brief Googling shows that some speed radar detector manufacturers tell their
}USofA customers that they have a right to receive radio signals under the
}Federal Communications Act of 1934, but that local and state regulations may
}modify that right. The Act, of course, has been amended and modified by a
}great deal of later lawmaking.
}
}ObFolkLaw: You (You being a Murrican, of course) have an absolute Right to
}receive any damnfoole radio signal you can pull in. You can't tell anyone, use
}the information or otherwise act on it.
}
}
}Lee "And you can tell people that all the way to the courthouse if you'd like"
}Ayrton
If you don't tell anyone, use the information, or otherwise act on it,
how is anyone ever going to know you were receiving, to haul you to
the courthouse?
"If a tree falls..."
Dr H
R H Draney
>
>For another weird audio effect, put your head at the center of a hollow
>sphere. I've unintentionally done this with 10-foot-diameter
>photometric spheres, and it was strange to hear myself breathing so
>loudly.
There's something weird about the acoustics in my downstairs "half-bath" that
bounces back just the low frequencies...I've learned not to talk or sing when I
go into that room or the bass feeds back until it makes my head hurt....
R H "do you suppose someone was going for the brown noise?" Draney
Karen J. Cravens
news:cvis0m$k3g$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk:
> Perhaps the most famous one in the UK, and very popular with tourists,
> is the echo in the reading room of the British Library.
The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago had a room specifically
designed for the effect, with two marked spots on the floor at opposite
ends and all. I assume it still does, but it's been a quarter century or
so...
--
Karen J. Cravens
Ralph Jones
Hyperbola, different curve. A parabolic reflector will direct sound
arriving along its axis through its focus, and these are used on
long-range microphones: they receive any sound coming from along the
axis.
A hyperbola reflects any sound that passes through one focus into a
path that passes through the other focus, and this is the principle of
most "whispering chambers." There are several European monasteries
that have these, including a 12th Century Spanish one that was
transplanted to Miami by William Randolph Hearst.
rj
Ralph Jones
wrote:
Dang, I mean ellipse, not hyperbola. Senior moment.
rj
Andrew Gray
They do, or something similar; an empty room with two parabolic
reflectors, I think. Don't offhand recall a specific room designed
architecturally for it, although I may have missed it (didn't get to see
everything)
--
-Andrew Gray
andre...@dunelm.org.uk
Ralph Jones
As I mention elsewhere, that's a mathematical property of an ellipse.
Stick two pins in a piece of cardboard and tie a string between them.
Stretch the string out with a pencil point and trace out the resulting
curve: that's an ellipse. Note that everywhere on the curve, both
parts of the string intersect the curve at the same angle (which
guarantees that all sound emanating from one point will be reflected
to the other) and that the total path length is always the same (which
guarantees that all the reflections will arrive in phase).
rj
David DeLaney
>Hyperbola, different curve.
??
>A parabolic reflector will direct sound
>arriving along its axis through its focus, and these are used on
>long-range microphones: they receive any sound coming from along the axis.
Yep.
>A hyperbola reflects any sound that passes through one focus into a
>path that passes through the other focus,
Well, er, yes, but it has to go all the way around the universe first
through infinity, and since light doesn't travel in a vacuum it has a bit of
a problem letting people design structures to take advantage of this.
>and this is the principle of most "whispering chambers."
Even disregarding the bad punctuation that would be a no.
Ellipses, now _ellipses_ are what a nice young Ralph like you wants to use
in this example. I've got a few I can let go cheap...
Dave "but what about the other three conic sections, I hear you ask?" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Lon
And the Mormon Tabernacle in SLC. Dunno if this is still demo'd
on the tours.
Marc Reeve
at the Exploratorium in San Francisco.
Marc "i've wanted to go the that museum in Chicago for years - originally to
see the U-505, but i've gathered other reasons since then" Reeve
Ralph Jones
wrote:
>Ralph Jones <ralp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Hyperbola, different curve.
>
>??
>
>>A parabolic reflector will direct sound
>>arriving along its axis through its focus, and these are used on
>>long-range microphones: they receive any sound coming from along the axis.
>
>Yep.
>
>>A hyperbola reflects any sound that passes through one focus into a
>>path that passes through the other focus,
>
>Well, er, yes, but it has to go all the way around the universe first
>through infinity, and since light doesn't travel in a vacuum it has a bit of
>a problem letting people design structures to take advantage of this.
>
>>and this is the principle of most "whispering chambers."
>
>Even disregarding the bad punctuation that would be a no.
>
>Ellipses, now _ellipses_ are what a nice young Ralph like you wants to use
>in this example. I've got a few I can let go cheap...
>
>Dave "but what about the other three conic sections, I hear you ask?" DeLaney
It's not pretty when corrections cross in mid-cyberspace...yes, I said
hyperbola vice ellipse. Mea maxima culpa.
rj
Ralph Jones
wrote:
>Ralph Jones <ralp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Hyperbola, different curve.
>
>??
>
>>A parabolic reflector will direct sound
>>arriving along its axis through its focus, and these are used on
>>long-range microphones: they receive any sound coming from along the axis.
>
>Yep.
>
>>A hyperbola reflects any sound that passes through one focus into a
>>path that passes through the other focus,
>
>Well, er, yes, but it has to go all the way around the universe first
>through infinity, and since light doesn't travel in a vacuum it has a bit of
>a problem letting people design structures to take advantage of this.
>
>>and this is the principle of most "whispering chambers."
>
>Even disregarding the bad punctuation that would be a no.
>
>Ellipses, now _ellipses_ are what a nice young Ralph like you wants to use
>in this example. I've got a few I can let go cheap...
>
>Dave "but what about the other three conic sections, I hear you ask?" DeLaney
It's not pretty when corrections cross in cyberspace...yes, I said
ellipse vice hyperbola. Mea maxima culpa.
But at least I had sound and light straight...
Ralph Jones
wrote:
>Ralph Jones <ralp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Hyperbola, different curve.
>
>??
>
>>A parabolic reflector will direct sound
>>arriving along its axis through its focus, and these are used on
>>long-range microphones: they receive any sound coming from along the axis.
>
>Yep.
>
>>A hyperbola reflects any sound that passes through one focus into a
>>path that passes through the other focus,
>
>Well, er, yes, but it has to go all the way around the universe first
>through infinity, and since light doesn't travel in a vacuum it has a bit of
>a problem letting people design structures to take advantage of this.
>
>>and this is the principle of most "whispering chambers."
>
>Even disregarding the bad punctuation that would be a no.
>
>Ellipses, now _ellipses_ are what a nice young Ralph like you wants to use
>in this example. I've got a few I can let go cheap...
>
>Dave "but what about the other three conic sections, I hear you ask?" DeLaney
It's not pretty when corrections cross in mid-ether...yes, I said
hyperbola instead of ellipse. Mea culpa.
But at least I had sound and light straight...
rj
Louise Bremner
No keywords?
________________________________________________________________________
Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
If you want a reply by e-mail, don't write to my Yahoo address!
Lee Ayrton
There's one that I know of in a private residence in Nashua, NH. It is a
room roughly the size of a 3-bay garage with an arched ceiling. A quiet
conversation in one corner will appear to be taking place in front of a
listener in another corner. The effect can be startling.
Since we were recording sound in that room it did occasionally present a
few technical problems.
JLB
> JLB <J...@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Thomas Prufer wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:36:05 GMT, Ray Heindl <vortre...@yaxhoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>There's a bridge over Rock Creek Park in Washington, DC, with arches
>>>>that make nice whispering galleries.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think these arches were even featured in some article, possibly
>>>Amateur Scientist, in Scientific American? I recall the author
>>>mentioning going out very early, and testing the effect by dropping a
>>>pin in a match box, and finding the sound clearly audible.
>>
>>Perhaps the most famous one in the UK, and very popular with tourists,
>>is the echo in the reading room of the British Library.
>
>
> No keywords?
I thought Hoffnung's jest has been around long enough to not need them,
but now I feel guilty.
The old Library room is now part of the British Museum. There's a
picture of it here
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=British+Museum+Reading+Room&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1
This website, apparently serious, recommends the echo as the first
highlight of the Museum, before even the Elgin Marbles!
http://www.odyssei.com/travel/show-travelcw.php?id=1620
Monte Davis
>For another weird audio effect, put your head at the center of a hollow
>sphere. I've unintentionally done this with 10-foot-diameter
>photometric spheres, and it was strange to hear myself breathing so
>loudly.
That worked in a geodesic dome I once had, too. It was remarkably
tight -- noticeable in a zone not more than 18" across at the focus of
a 5/8 sphere of 27' diameter.
-Monte "I always tilt my head like this, why do you ask?" Davis
Lee Rudolph
>The old Library room is now part of the British Museum. There's a
>picture of it here
>http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=British+Museum+Reading+Room&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1
>
>This website, apparently serious, recommends the echo as the first
>highlight of the Museum, before even the Elgin Marbles!
>http://www.odyssei.com/travel/show-travelcw.php?id=1620
I assume that the Museum will be giving the echo back to Greece too,
then?
Lee "a crowd of Narcissi!" Rudolph
Burroughs Guy
> >A hyperbola reflects any sound that passes through one focus into a
> >path that passes through the other focus, and this is the principle of
> >most "whispering chambers." There are several European monasteries
> >that have these, including a 12th Century Spanish one that was
> >transplanted to Miami by William Randolph Hearst.
> >
> >rj
> Dang, I mean ellipse, not hyperbola. Senior moment.
If you extend the distance between the two foci of the elipse to
infinity you get two parabolas. If you extend it past infinity you
get a hyperbola. Where the actual shape is imperect, it might be hard
to distinguish between one ellipse and two parabolas facing each other.
The Senate chamber may be an actual ellipse, though when it was
demonstated to me in 1971, they implied there was a sharp focus only
on Quincy's side. If the chamber were really symmetrical, both sides
would be listening to each other.
danny burstein
[ ... ]
>The Senate chamber may be an actual ellipse, though when it was
>demonstated to me in 1971, they implied there was a sharp focus only
>on Quincy's side. If the chamber were really symmetrical, both sides
>would be listening to each other.
Politicians listening to each other? We could never have that, could we?
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
O J
> If you don't tell anyone, use the information, or otherwise act on it,
> how is anyone ever going to know you were receiving, to haul you to
> the courthouse?
>
> "If a tree falls..."
A sensitive receiver of the proper type can detect the presence of
another receiver. A receiver will generate electromagnetic signals of
a type somewhat similar to the frequency it's looking for and then get
the information carried by the broadcast signal from the difference.
Totally oversimplified, but a radar detector detector is quite
possible to build. In some states, the Virginia of some years ago for
example, the police were equipped with them and the fine was
substantial according to a friend who lived there at the time.
Regards,
O J Gritmon
Ray Heindl
> A sensitive receiver of the proper type can detect the presence of
> another receiver. A receiver will generate electromagnetic
> signals of a type somewhat similar to the frequency it's looking
> for and then get the information carried by the broadcast signal
> from the difference.
>
> Totally oversimplified, but a radar detector detector is quite
> possible to build. In some states, the Virginia of some years ago
> for example, the police were equipped with them and the fine was
> substantial according to a friend who lived there at the time.
Back when I used a radar detector, the one I had would routinely give
false alarms triggered by cheapo detectors in oncoming cars. It took a
bit of experience to tell the false alarms from the real ones. I would
hope that modern detectors would be harder to detect.
Do the laser detectors emit laser radiation? Enquiring minds couldn't
care less.
Dr H
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, O J vociferated:
}Dr H wrote:
}
}> If you don't tell anyone, use the information, or otherwise act on it,
}> how is anyone ever going to know you were receiving, to haul you to
}> the courthouse?
}>
}> "If a tree falls..."
}
}A sensitive receiver of the proper type can detect the presence of
}another receiver. A receiver will generate electromagnetic signals of
}a type somewhat similar to the frequency it's looking for and then get
}the information carried by the broadcast signal from the difference.
Yeah, sure -- the principle of the heterodyne receiver.
But you'd have to be deliberately looking for the allegedly illegally
tuned reciever, and REALLY looking for it hard to catch very many
illicit listeners that way. And it would be pretty easy to muck
up the detector with a few other strategically-tuned receivers scattered
around the dwelling -- assuming that all that natural RF noise from
multiple sources in a typical residential neighborhood weren't already
making detection difficult.
}Totally oversimplified, but a radar detector detector is quite
}possible to build. In some states, the Virginia of some years ago for
}example, the police were equipped with them and the fine was
}substantial according to a friend who lived there at the time.
Radar detectors are rather a special case, though. There you have a
pre-determined place to focus your detector-detector -- the car at
which you have your radar gun aimed. A bit different than determining
which person in a neighborhood of 100 houses full of radios, TVs,
cordless and cell phones, and whatnot might be illicitly listening
in on a police scanner.
And the "information" you're receiving from a radar detector is really just
whether there's a transmitter pointed at you or not. I suppose the audible
or visual warning signal /could/ be construed to be a "use" of that information,
but since the physical detectors themselves are illegal in many parts, that's
kind of a moot point.
Dr H
Crashj
<monte...@verizon.net> wrote something like:
>Ray Heindl <vortre...@yaxhoo.com> wrote:
>
>>For another weird audio effect, put your head at the center of a hollow
>>sphere. I've unintentionally done this with 10-foot-diameter
>>photometric spheres, and it was strange to hear myself breathing so
>>loudly.
>
>That worked in a geodesic dome I once had, too. It was remarkably
>tight -- noticeable in a zone not more than 18" across at the focus of
>a 5/8 sphere of 27' diameter.
Had an occasion to hold a bunch (12 plus) balloons about my head. When
you talk you get the strangest echo effect from all those tight rubber
bladders . . .
"Don't ask, don't tell"
--
Crashj
Crashj
<oj...@pacbell.BOGUS.net> wrote something like:
>Dr H wrote:
>
>> If you don't tell anyone, use the information, or otherwise act on it,
>> how is anyone ever going to know you were receiving, to haul you to
>> the courthouse?
>A sensitive receiver of the proper type can detect the presence of
>another receiver. A receiver will generate electromagnetic signals of
>a type somewhat similar to the frequency it's looking for and then get
>the information carried by the broadcast signal from the difference.
>
>Totally oversimplified, but a radar detector detector is quite
>possible to build.
As explained by a mechanical engineer:
This radiation is part of the hetrodyne priciple of design, as I
understand it. There is an intermediate frequency generated in the
reciever as part of the detecting and amplifying circuitry. This
intermediate frequency is a constant and can be detected. The better
radar detectors are shielded and thus the hetrodyne frequency is not
detectable.
--
Crashj
Lon
Your receiver has a tunable local oscillator. You take the incoming
RF and run it thru a broadband RF amp only sufficiently to bring the
power level up to a desirable signal/noise ratio. This is done to
make for the least complex overall design. Then you take the
minimally amplified RF signal and mix it with your tuneable local
oscillator. Then you stuff this thru a narrow pass filter that
only passes a resulting signal that is (for example) centered
at exactly 10 MHz with only enough frequency response to get the
desired signal components thru. This 10 MHz signal is the
Intermediate Frequency [IF] that you can now design a fairly
straightforward set of amplification stages for...rather than
needing to be able to amplify the much wider and more difficult
RF frequency range of interest. You effectively "tune" for the
desired RF signal by changing the local oscillator, since the
filtering at the head of the IF section will only pass that very
narrow 10 MHz band... so the only [signals from the] RF that will
make it thru is RF that is exactly 10 Mhz from the local oscillator.
Or 30 Mhz for some apps...
At the output of the IF section, you apply whatever additional
filtering/processing is necessary to extract the signal that
was originally on the incoming RF signal. Possibly as simple
as a cheap slope detector [a cap and diode] for radio FM.
Louise Bremner
> >>Perhaps the most famous one in the UK, and very popular with tourists,
> >>is the echo in the reading room of the British Library.
> >
> >
> > No keywords?
>
> I thought Hoffnung's jest has been around long enough to not need them,
> but now I feel guilty.
>
> The old Library room is now part of the British Museum. There's a
> picture of it here
><http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=British+M
useum+Reading+Room&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1>
>
> This website, apparently serious, recommends the echo as the first
> highlight of the Museum, before even the Elgin Marbles!
> http://www.odyssei.com/travel/show-travelcw.php?id=1620
Oh, well... they'll only have themselves to blame if some clueless
tourist tries it. (Or even a more cluesome person with a convincing
wide-eyed "but they recommended it" look.)
________________________________________________________________________
Louise "no, not me, nooooo...." Bremner (log at gol dot com)
Mary Shafer
wrote:
> Well, er, yes, but it has to go all the way around the universe first
> through infinity, and since light doesn't travel in a vacuum it has a bit of
> a problem letting people design structures to take advantage of this.
Light doesn't what? Perhaps you meant sound, not light.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
ossi...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, O J vociferated:
> }
> }of another receiver. A receiver will generate electromagnetic
> }signals of a type somewhat similar to the frequency it's looking
> }for and then get the information carried by the broadcast signal
> }from the difference.
>
> Yeah, sure -- the principle of the heterodyne receiver.
>
> But you'd have to be deliberately looking for the allegedly illegally
> tuned reciever, and REALLY looking for it hard to catch very many
> illicit listeners that way. And it would be pretty easy to muck
> up the detector with a few other strategically-tuned receivers
> scattered around the dwelling -- assuming that all that natural RF
> noise from multiple sources in a typical residential neighborhood
> weren't already making detection difficult.
Not to mention if the listening device is non-electronic. e.g. a
sound-horn recording onto a physical/analogue medium (I know, that's
probably a silly example but you never know what the pre-1989 Iron
Curtain boffins tried) or a proficient stenographer with an
ear-trumpet.
Or even semi-electronic - a sound horn directing it's collection onto a
hand-held recorder.
Admittedly, with the first and last of those, it would be difficult to
monitor the quality of what was being recorded. One of the advantages
of modern electronic equipment is the ability to split the received
signal into a recording stream and a monitoring/targeting stream
without much loss.
And, of course, none of those options would be unobtrusive in a
public-park environment. Never mind.
--
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is
that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just
borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages
down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets
for new vocabulary."
- James D. Nicoll, in rec.arts.sf-lovers, 15 May 1990
Thomas Prufer
wrote:
>Had an occasion to hold a bunch (12 plus) balloons about my head. When
>you talk you get the strangest echo effect from all those tight rubber
>bladders . . .
Particularly if they are helium-filled. I think it's because the speed of sound
in helium is different than in air, and unequal speeds will lead to a slight
time difference in the sound reaching the ears. And as time difference is one of
the mechanisms that locate sound, the acoustic world is skewed with respect to
the seen world.
I've had helium in one ear, and the effect is pronounced. ("Don't ask, don't
tell"...) A similar effect sometimes appears when listening to someone directly
across a fire.
Thomas Prufer
R H Draney
>
>On 23 Feb 2005 21:00:48 -0500, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
>wrote:
>
>> Well, er, yes, but it has to go all the way around the universe first
>> through infinity, and since light doesn't travel in a vacuum it has a bit of
>> a problem letting people design structures to take advantage of this.
>
>Light doesn't what? Perhaps you meant sound, not light.
But whoosh propagates within its own peculiar aether....r
R. A. Flournoy, Jr.
> Dr H wrote:
> Totally oversimplified, but a radar detector detector is quite
> possible to build. In some states, the Virginia of some years ago for
> example, the police were equipped with them and the fine was
> substantial according to a friend who lived there at the time.
>
> Regards,
> O J Gritmon
The lo cal police of the Virginia of now (at least the Tidewater subset)
is still so equipped and still issue fines.
Robert Flournoy
Ralph Jones
<prufer...@mnet-online.de.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 02:35:35 GMT, Crashj <leader00...@mindspring.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Had an occasion to hold a bunch (12 plus) balloons about my head. When
>>you talk you get the strangest echo effect from all those tight rubber
>>bladders . . .
>
>Particularly if they are helium-filled. I think it's because the speed of sound
>in helium is different than in air, and unequal speeds will lead to a slight
>time difference in the sound reaching the ears. And as time difference is one of
>the mechanisms that locate sound, the acoustic world is skewed with respect to
>the seen world.
>
Yes indeed. The larynx is a cavity resonator that generates sound in
the wavelength domain. The product of wavelength and frequency is the
speed of tansmission, and that is higher in helium...so the frequency
winds up being higher and you get the Donald Duck effect.
rj
Jane Chaplin
"Charles Wm. Dimmick" <cdim...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:k11Td.11489$hU7....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
| There is a wonderful whispering arch in the hotel of the old
| railroad station in Saint Louis. You can whisper, facing the
| wall on one side of the arch, and another person on the other
| side of the arch can hear everything plainly, just as though
| you were whispering in their ear. Also famous for this are
| several locations in the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.
Hughes Hall (IIRC) at The Ohio State University, has whispering arches at
its entryway. The main one, that is, that faces the Oval. I'm sure the
back doors don't.
Hatunen
wrote:
Are radar detectors, in fact, superheterodyne receivers? I can
see a strong case for the use of regenerative or super
regenerative circuits in a radar detector.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Ray Heindl
> And the "information" you're receiving from a radar detector is
> really just whether there's a transmitter pointed at you or not.
> I suppose the audible or visual warning signal /could/ be
> construed to be a "use" of that information, but since the
> physical detectors themselves are illegal in many parts, that's
> kind of a moot point.
In the US, only Virginia and the District of Columbia ban radar
detectors in non-commercial vehicles. New York bans them in trucks
over 18,000 pounds, and Illinois regulates them in commercial vehicles.
So, USanically speaking, they're not illegal in most places.
But most other countries do ban them.
" The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in a survey of 21
countries, recently found only the United States, Iceland, Japan, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and some Canadian provinces (Alberta,
British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan) allow radar detectors."
<http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/radar.htm>
<http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/7114>
Lee Ayrton
> Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>> And the "information" you're receiving from a radar detector is
>> really just whether there's a transmitter pointed at you or not.
[...]
> In the US, only Virginia and the District of Columbia ban radar
> detectors in non-commercial vehicles. New York bans them in trucks
> over 18,000 pounds, and Illinois regulates them in commercial vehicles.
> So, USanically speaking, they're not illegal in most places.
[snip]
Do you happen to know if VA and DC ban the possession or ban just the use
of police speed radar detectors? If memory serves correctly, at one point
(circa 1980) the state of Connecticut attempted to ban the possession of
detectors. After losing a court challenge the law was revised to allow
possession, but outlawed their permanent installation or use. If memory
serves, the challenge was based on a right of US citizens to possess radio
receivers.
Lee "You can take my radio when you pry it from my cold... oh, here. Take
it." Ayrton
ra...@vt.edu
> Do you happen to know if VA and DC ban the possession or ban just the use
> of police speed radar detectors? If memory serves correctly, at one point
> (circa 1980) the state of Connecticut attempted to ban the possession of
> detectors. After losing a court challenge the law was revised to allow
> possession, but outlawed their permanent installation or use. If memory
> serves, the challenge was based on a right of US citizens to possess radio
> receivers.
I don't know about DC, but a very similar case pretty much means
that you can have an unused detector in Va. It seems a fellow got
pulled over on his way back from buying a brand new radar detector
at a Radio Shack in Virginia. The trooper spotted said detector,
still in its unopened box, and confiscated it. Eventually the
Commonwealth lost their case and now you can have a detector in
you car but it must not be easily operated. E.G. power cord locked
in the glove box or whatever. I think in practice the Va. State
Police use detector detectors, so it pretty much has to be
in use before they "see" it.
Bill "vague references R us" Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Lon
>>Crashj proclaimed:
[deleted as a public service]
>> was originally on the incoming RF signal. Possibly as simple
>> as a cheap slope detector [a cap and diode] for radio FM.
>
>
> Are radar detectors, in fact, superheterodyne receivers? I can
> see a strong case for the use of regenerative or super
> regenerative circuits in a radar detector.
I honestly haven't the foggiest idea.
I would guess that the very nature of a superhet receiver would
work against you in something expected to detect signals across
much of a wide bandwidth...but as the first line says...
TeaLady (Mari C.)
news:Pine.NEB.4.61.05...@panix1.panix.com:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Ray Heindl wrote:
>
>> Dr H <hiaw...@efn.org> wrote:
>>
>>> And the "information" you're receiving from a radar
>>> detector is really just whether there's a transmitter
>>> pointed at you or not.
> [...]
>
>> In the US, only Virginia and the District of Columbia ban
>> radar detectors in non-commercial vehicles. New York bans
>> them in trucks over 18,000 pounds, and Illinois regulates
>> them in commercial vehicles. So, USanically speaking,
>> they're not illegal in most places.
> [snip]
>
> Do you happen to know if VA and DC ban the possession or
> ban just the use of police speed radar detectors? If
> memory serves correctly, at one point (circa 1980) the
> state of Connecticut attempted to ban the possession of
> detectors. After losing a court challenge the law was
> revised to allow possession, but outlawed their permanent
> installation or use. If memory serves, the challenge was
> based on a right of US citizens to possess radio receivers.
>
One of my cow orkers would argue possession is illegal in Va,
as she witnessed, on a drive south to vacation paradise, the
removal of her hubby's detector by a Va policeperson several
years ago (L). Said detector was not hooked up and turned on,
but was resting in plain sight on the front seat. Officer-
type told them he wouldn't write a ticket for use, as it was
not in use, but that he was going to take the device, as it
was illegal to own. And he did.
I do not know if he was right in doing so. Neither did my cow
orker, but she wasn't going to risk large fine or jail in
objecting to the action, nor was she interested in
discovering, perhaps the hard way, just how legal the
officer's action really was.
--
TeaLady (mari)
"I keep telling you, chew with your mouth closed!" Kell the
coach offers advice on keeping that elusive prey caught.
Ray Heindl
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Ray Heindl wrote:
>> In the US, only Virginia and the District of Columbia ban radar
>> detectors in non-commercial vehicles. New York bans them in
>> trucks over 18,000 pounds, and Illinois regulates them in
>> commercial vehicles. So, USanically speaking, they're not illegal
>> in most places.
> [snip]
> Do you happen to know if VA and DC ban the possession or ban just
> the use of police speed radar detectors? If memory serves
> correctly, at one point (circa 1980) the state of Connecticut
> attempted to ban the possession of detectors. After losing a
> court challenge the law was revised to allow possession, but
> outlawed their permanent installation or use. If memory serves,
> the challenge was based on a right of US citizens to possess radio
> receivers.
I couldn't find anything in the DC code, but you might want to take a
look: <http://dccode.westgroup.com/home/dccodes/>
In Virginia:
<http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-1079>
[quote]
§ 46.2-1079. Radar detectors; demerit points not to be awarded.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle on
the highways of the Commonwealth when such vehicle is equipped with any
device or mechanism, passive or active, to detect or purposefully
interfere with or diminish the measurement capabilities of any radar,
laser, or other device or mechanism employed by law-enforcement
personnel to measure the speed of motor vehicles on the highways of the
Commonwealth for law-enforcement purposes. It shall be unlawful to use
any such device or mechanism on any such motor vehicle on the highways.
It shall be unlawful to sell any such device or mechanism in the
Commonwealth. However, provisions of this section shall not apply to
any receiver of radio waves utilized for lawful purposes to receive any
signal from a frequency lawfully licensed by any state or federal
agency.
This section shall not be construed to authorize the forfeiture to the
Commonwealth of any such device or mechanism. Any such device or
mechanism may be taken by the arresting officer if needed as evidence,
and, when no longer needed, shall be returned to the person charged
with a violation of this section, or at that person's request, and his
expense, mailed to an address specified by him. Any unclaimed devices
may be destroyed on court order after six months have elapsed from the
final date for filing an appeal.
Except as provided in subsection B of this section, the presence of any
such prohibited device or mechanism in or on a motor vehicle on the
highways of the Commonwealth shall constitute prima facie evidence of
the violation of this section. The Commonwealth need not prove that the
device or mechanism in question was in an operative condition or being
operated.
B. A person shall not be guilty of a violation of this section when the
device or mechanism in question, at the time of the alleged offense,
had no power source and was not readily accessible for use by the
driver or any passenger in the vehicle.
[end quote]
O J
>
>Do you happen to know if VA and DC ban the possession or ban just the use
>of police speed radar detectors? If memory serves correctly, at one point
>(circa 1980) the state of Connecticut attempted to ban the possession of
>detectors. After losing a court challenge the law was revised to allow
>possession, but outlawed their permanent installation or use. If memory
>serves, the challenge was based on a right of US citizens to possess radio
>receivers.
>
When I was visiting the friend I mentioned who lived in VA, I seem to
recall that as I crossed the state line there were copious
announcements via roadside signs that the detectors were illegal. It
made me wonder just how cheaply I could breadboard a milliwatt
microwave transmitter just to piss off the local law enforcement
officers.
Then it occurred to me that pissing off Southern lawmen just for fun
was probably not a worthwhile hobby.
O J "We'uns don't cotton to wise-ass Yankees in these parts." Gritmon
Hatunen
wrote:
>Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
>>
>>Do you happen to know if VA and DC ban the possession or ban just the use
>>of police speed radar detectors? If memory serves correctly, at one point
>>(circa 1980) the state of Connecticut attempted to ban the possession of
>>detectors. After losing a court challenge the law was revised to allow
>>possession, but outlawed their permanent installation or use. If memory
>>serves, the challenge was based on a right of US citizens to possess radio
>>receivers.
>>
>When I was visiting the friend I mentioned who lived in VA, I seem to
>recall that as I crossed the state line there were copious
>announcements via roadside signs that the detectors were illegal. It
>made me wonder just how cheaply I could breadboard a milliwatt
>microwave transmitter just to piss off the local law enforcement
>officers.
Get yourself an amateur radio operator's license and breadboard a
circuit legally; transmit CQ to your heart's content.
O J
>O J wrote:
>
>>When I was visiting the friend I mentioned who lived in VA, I seem to
>>recall that as I crossed the state line there were copious
>>announcements via roadside signs that the detectors were illegal. It
>>made me wonder just how cheaply I could breadboard a milliwatt
>>microwave transmitter just to piss off the local law enforcement
>>officers.
>
>Get yourself an amateur radio operator's license and breadboard a
>circuit legally; transmit CQ to your heart's content.
I've got my professional license. If you want a scary thought, I'm
licensed to repair the radios in either the control tower or the
airliner you trust your life to.
Regards,
O J "Close enough for g'ummint work" Gritmon
Hatunen
wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
But can you build a transmitter and legally send a signal on
police radar bands?
Burroughs Guy
> I've got my professional license. If you want a scary thought, I'm
> licensed to repair the radios in either the control tower or the
> airliner you trust your life to.
As long as you are not licensed to repair both, I am not scared.
--
Burroughs Guy
Vaguer memories available upon request
Dr H
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, TeaLady (Mari C.) vociferated:
Hmm... I too have directly witnessed a confiscation of a detector
in Oregon. But searching the Oregon Revised Statutes it would
seem that Oregon does not at this time regulate the possesion or
use of such devices, but it does regulate their resale to a third
party. Bizarre.
Dr H