Not to sound like a conspiracy nut....
phil of the future
But a couple of events twigged my antennae:
In Bob Woodward's latest book he alludes to amazing technological methods
employed by the US military to break the insurgency in Iraq. For reasons of
national security he did not describe them but:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-rutten10-2008sep10,0,2274297.story
Woodward's appraisal is more nuanced. He argues that the current situation
was created by the confluence of three forces of which the troop surge may
be the least consequential. More important is a hyper-secret new program (by
inference, a combination of technology and operational techniques) that has
allowed U.S. forces to identify, locate and kill huge numbers of the
insurgency's leaders, including members of Al Qaeda. When military and White
House officials learned that Woodward knew of the secret program, they asked
that he withhold any details because publication would endanger the
operation and compromise its use elsewhere. Responsible though Woodward's
decision may be, it lends a fairly frustrating opacity to what is "The War
Within's" biggest revelation
===============================================
Recently I listened to a BBC Radio piece on various detainees still and
some released and I began to wonder. Could the US program be a matter of
surreptiously implanting some sort of tracking device in released detainees
then following them?
Could there be a major program of of implanting people?
Could it be just the beginning of a domestic program? It could be sold at
first for the released convicts, parolees, then medically required, and then
children to 'KEEP THE CHILDREN SAFE'. Pretty everyone is micro chipped like
your cocker spaniel.
William Black
"phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote in message
news:glcpcq$ck3$1...@news.datemas.de...
It's much more likely to be someone doing something very clever with mobile
phones.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
wjtingle
>
> "phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote in message
> news:glcpcq$ck3$1...@news.datemas.de...
>> Recently I listened to a BBC Radio piece on various detainees still
>> and some released and I began to wonder. Could the US program be a
>> matter of surreptiously implanting some sort of tracking device in
>> released detainees then following them?
>>
>> Could there be a major program of of implanting people?
More likely their pets. :)
>> Could it be just the beginning of a domestic program? It could be sold
>> at first for the released convicts, parolees, then medically required,
>> and then children to 'KEEP THE CHILDREN SAFE'. Pretty everyone is
>> micro chipped like your cocker spaniel.
>
> It's much more likely to be someone doing something very clever with
> mobile phones.
Or checking the terrorists' Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter feeds.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Shawn Wilson
> In Bob Woodward's latest book he alludes to amazing technological methods
> employed by the US military to break the insurgency in Iraq. For reasons of
> national security he did not describe them but:
In that te insurgency is basically a socal organization, done face to
face, there aren't a lot of weak points for technology to exploit.
Sure it will be used where it can, but it won't be a trump card.
> Recently I listened to a BBC Radio piece on various detainees still and
> some released and I began to wonder. Could the US program be a matter of
> surreptiously implanting some sort of tracking device in released detainees
> then following them?
Won't work. Turning former detainees into US agents is much
better... Why do you think so many have been released as 'harmless'
even though many of the released are returning to the battlefield?
You can't infiltrate AQ with outsiders.
> Could it be just the beginning of a domestic program? It could be sold at
> first for the released convicts, parolees, then medically required, and then
> children to 'KEEP THE CHILDREN SAFE'. Pretty everyone is micro chipped like
> your cocker spaniel.
What kind of battery would you use? How much power would the device
have? How small would it have to be not to be noticed? Totally
impractical.
phil of the future
"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b2e1af5-a707-441a...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 23, 8:57 am, "phil of the future" <P...@the.future> wrote:
> What kind of battery would you use?
Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
> How much power would the device
> have?
Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
> How small would it have to be not to be noticed?
Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
> Totally impractical.
Then how do pet implants and RFID's work?
Mike Ash
"phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
> Then how do pet implants and RFID's work?
They work by having the vet or shelter who takes in an animal run a
scanner over that animal which queries the implant. RFIDs are inherently
short-range technology. The scanners generally have a range of a few
inches. This can be boosted to the massive range of several feet,
perhaps even a couple of dozen feet, with a lot of really bulky and
expensive scanning equipment and a completely unobstructed path to the
chip. It's not going to get you anywhere close to a big screen in the
basement of the Pentagon with a red dot showing the location of every
terrorist suspect released back into the wild.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
phil of the future
"Mike Ash" <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote in message
news:mike-4C0DB9.2...@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> In article <gldo8v$nkv$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> "phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
>
>> Then how do pet implants and RFID's work?
>
> They work by having the vet or shelter who takes in an animal run a
> scanner over that animal which queries the implant. RFIDs are inherently
> short-range technology. The scanners generally have a range of a few
> inches. This can be boosted to the massive range of several feet,
> perhaps even a couple of dozen feet, with a lot of really bulky and
> expensive scanning equipment and a completely unobstructed path to the
> chip. It's not going to get you anywhere close to a big screen in the
> basement of the Pentagon with a red dot showing the location of every
> terrorist suspect released back into the wild.
So the folks at DARPA have taken things a step or three further along.
Derek Lyons
>"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3b2e1af5-a707-441a...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 23, 8:57 am, "phil of the future" <P...@the.future> wrote:
>
>> What kind of battery would you use?
>
>Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
I.E. precisely zero, zip, nada, squat.
>Then how do pet implants and RFID's work?
ROTFLMAO. First you claim the device would be the same as a pet
implant or RFID - and then you ask how they work?
The more usual sequence is rather the reverse.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
mimus
Or playing video-games with flying drones all over Western Pakistan--
there was a recent "hit" there that took out a couple of genyoowine al
Qaeda operatives, one a long-time planner for the group, that involved
at least six drones buzzing around over the village in question:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=19509
--
Let's get the hell out of here while we can still pass
our Rorschach tests.
< _The Last Happy Hour_
phil of the future
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:497eac40....@news.supernews.com...
> "phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
>
>>"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:3b2e1af5-a707-441a...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jan 23, 8:57 am, "phil of the future" <P...@the.future> wrote:
>>
>>> What kind of battery would you use?
>>
>>Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
>
> I.E. precisely zero, zip, nada, squat.
I concede I should have said _similar_. It is not exactly a stretch to
assume that the reources of the US military might allow for a more advanced
device than is availlable to the local veternarian.
>
>>Then how do pet implants and RFID's work?
>
> ROTFLMAO. First you claim the device would be the same as a pet
> implant or RFID - and then you ask how they work?
Rhetorical Question: a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for
its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply. For example, "Why
me, Lord?" Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to reflect on what
the implied answer to the question must be.
Michael Grosberg
> "Derek Lyons" <fairwa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:497eac40....@news.supernews.com...
>
> > "phil of the future" <P...@the.future> wrote:
>
> >>"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:3b2e1af5-a707-441a...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >>On Jan 23, 8:57 am, "phil of the future" <P...@the.future> wrote:
>
> >>> What kind of battery would you use?
>
> >>Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
>
> > I.E. precisely zero, zip, nada, squat.
>
> I concede I should have said _similar_. It is not exactly a stretch to
> assume that the reources of the US military might allow for a more advanced
> device than is availlable to the local veternarian.
>
>
>
> >>Then how do pet implants and RFID's work?
>
> > ROTFLMAO. First you claim the device would be the same as a pet
> > implant or RFID - and then you ask how they work?
>
> Rhetorical Question: a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for
> its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply. For example, "Why
> me, Lord?" Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to reflect on what
> the implied answer to the question must be.
Yes, well, but the things is - turns out you REALLY have no idea how
RFID chips work.
phil of the future
"Michael Grosberg" <grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2a493f9-6ea3-42a2...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
While I accept that my knowledge of such things pales besides yours, I can
at least console myself with the realization that at least I can identify a
rhetorical question at a glance.
BillGill
>
> But a couple of events twigged my antennae:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
But you still manage.
Bill
Marcus L. Rowland
<Ph...@the.future> writes
Over distances of a few inches to a couple of feet maximum, which is why
a vet has to use a hand-held scanner to locate and read one. Next
question?
RFID chips are teeny because they don't have very limited range and no
internal power supply. To be picked up at greater range a transmitter
would have to be much bigger, and have its own power supply. It would be
large enough that even a routine search or medical examination would
spot it, and it would be virtually impossible for the carrier not to
notice it was inside his body.
Or are we going with mind control lasers to keep everyone from noticing?
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
http://www.forgottenfutures.org/
LJ:ffutures http://www.forgottenfutures.co.uk/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
Diana: Warrior Princess & Elvis: The Legendary Tours
The Original Flatland Role Playing Game
Marcus L. Rowland
<forgotte...@ntlworld.com> writes
>RFID chips are teeny because they don't have very limited range and no
>internal power supply.
Sorry -
because they have very limited range...
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
I work with the U.S. Military on exactly this kind of technology.
No, they haven't. I can't tell you exactly what they CAN do, but the
kind of thing you're talking about is a couple of technology generations
away if you want them to be so inconspicuous that the victim doesn't
know he's tagged.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Rebecca Rice
> In message <gldo8v$nkv$1...@news.datemas.de>, phil of the future
> <Ph...@the.future> writes
>>
>> "Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3b2e1af5-a707-441a...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com..>.
>>
>> On Jan 23, 8:57 am, "phil of the future" <P...@the.future> wrote:
>>
>>> What kind of battery would you use?
>>
>> Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
>>
>>> How much power would the device
>>> have?
>>
>> Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
>>
>>> How small would it have to be not to be noticed?
>>
>> Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
>>
>>> Totally impractical.
>>
>> Then how do pet implants and RFID's work?
>
> Over distances of a few inches to a couple of feet maximum, which is why
> a vet has to use a hand-held scanner to locate and read one. Next question?
>
> RFID chips are teeny because they don't have very limited range and no
> internal power supply. To be picked up at greater range a transmitter
> would have to be much bigger, and have its own power supply. It would be
> large enough that even a routine search or medical examination would
> spot it, and it would be virtually impossible for the carrier not to
> notice it was inside his body.
>
To give you an idea, there are collars (apparently commonly
used with hunting dogs) that will in fact transmit their GPS
location, so you can go find a dog that's still trailing
when you are ready to head home. These are collars in order
to contain the batteries, etc., but will give an idea of the
size that you are talking about.
Rebecca
David Johnston
<Ph...@the.future> wrote:
>
>"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:497eac40....@news.supernews.com...
>> "phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
>>
>>>"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3b2e1af5-a707-441a...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Jan 23, 8:57 am, "phil of the future" <P...@the.future> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What kind of battery would you use?
>>>
>>>Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
>>
>> I.E. precisely zero, zip, nada, squat.
>
>I concede I should have said _similar_. It is not exactly a stretch to
>assume that the reources of the US military might allow for a more advanced
>device than is availlable to the local veternarian.
But then it would have a very different power source so "same as an
RFID" would not be an accurate answer.
>
>
>>
>>>Then how do pet implants and RFID's work?
>>
>> ROTFLMAO. First you claim the device would be the same as a pet
>> implant or RFID - and then you ask how they work?
>
>Rhetorical Question: a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for
>its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply. For example, "Why
>me, Lord?" Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to reflect on what
>the implied answer to the question must be.
>
And they're wonderful ways to avoid giving a straight answer.
Mike Ash
"phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
> "Mike Ash" <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote in message
> news:mike-4C0DB9.2...@mara100-84.onlink.net...
> > In article <gldo8v$nkv$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> > "phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote:
> >
> >> Then how do pet implants and RFID's work?
> >
> > They work by having the vet or shelter who takes in an animal run a
> > scanner over that animal which queries the implant. RFIDs are inherently
> > short-range technology. The scanners generally have a range of a few
> > inches. This can be boosted to the massive range of several feet,
> > perhaps even a couple of dozen feet, with a lot of really bulky and
> > expensive scanning equipment and a completely unobstructed path to the
> > chip. It's not going to get you anywhere close to a big screen in the
> > basement of the Pentagon with a red dot showing the location of every
> > terrorist suspect released back into the wild.
>
> So the folks at DARPA have taken things a step or three further along.
RFID range scales as the fourth root of power. It's essentially radar.
So if big, expensive kit can pick the stuff up 20 feet away, then to get
to 40 feet away you need 16 times the power.
To read the stuff from an overflying Predator drone at 10,000ft, you'll
need 62.5 billion times the power.
That's a little more than "a step or three further along".
To put it in perspective, if the 20-foot pulse is only one Joule (and
it's probably more), then the 10,000ft pulse is a Hiroshima bomb.
The military leads the civilian sectors in certain technology areas, but
electronics is not one of them. And even if they did, they're not going
to lead by orders of magnitude, doing things that people out in the
civilian world believe to be beyond the physically possible.
Dimensional Traveler
You sure that isn't what your tag programmed you to say? *grin*
--
"What Kind of perv rememembers the scenes where she's clothed???" -
Anim8rFSK, 8/23/08
eatfastnoodle
> But a couple of events twigged my antennae:
>
> In Bob Woodward's latest book he alludes to amazing technological methods
> employed by the US military to break the insurgency in Iraq. For reasons of
> national security he did not describe them but:
>
>
> Woodward's appraisal is more nuanced. He argues that the current situation
> was created by the confluence of three forces of which the troop surge may
> be the least consequential. More important is a hyper-secret new program (by
> inference, a combination of technology and operational techniques) that has
> allowed U.S. forces to identify, locate and kill huge numbers of the
> insurgency's leaders, including members of Al Qaeda. When military and White
> House officials learned that Woodward knew of the secret program, they asked
> that he withhold any details because publication would endanger the
> operation and compromise its use elsewhere. Responsible though Woodward's
> decision may be, it lends a fairly frustrating opacity to what is "The War
> Within's" biggest revelation
> ===============================================
>
> Recently I listened to a BBC Radio piece on various detainees still and
> some released and I began to wonder. Could the US program be a matter of
> surreptiously implanting some sort of tracking device in released detainees
> then following them?
>
> Could there be a major program of of implanting people?
>
> Could it be just the beginning of a domestic program? It could be sold at
> first for the released convicts, parolees, then medically required, and then
> children to 'KEEP THE CHILDREN SAFE'. Pretty everyone is micro chipped like
> your cocker spaniel.
The secret weapon is green buck, lots of them. The US splurged money
on buying off Sunni tribesmen, thus creating the Awaking Council that
turned out to be so effective in taming the Sunni
insurgency. Combined with strategic decision by Shiite militias to lay
low in anticipation of the now-clear US exit from Iraq. The real dirty
stuff have yet to happen. Iraq is a ticking time bomb with Iran,
Turkey and gulf nations ready to jump in as soon as US troops
withdraw. I'm now more than ever convinced that the Bush
administration's "surge" strategy (aka bribing tribesmen and militias
in exchange to temporary quite for political gains) is more of an exit
strategy for Bush administration. Let's wait and see how Obama would
deal with the big right wing political counter-attack when Iraq
actually flares up (inevitable, I would say). By then, Republicans
would against succeed in transferring what should be their failure to
Obama.
Kay Shapero
@hotmail.com says...
> Or playing video-games with flying drones all over Western Pakistan--
> there was a recent "hit" there that took out a couple of genyoowine al
> Qaeda operatives, one a long-time planner for the group, that involved
> at least six drones buzzing around over the village in question:
>
Hmm... speaking of things buzzing around, why not just release a few
clouds of mosquitoes about someplace we have to get into. Make one heck
of a distraction.
--
Kay Shapero
address munged, email kay at following domain
http://www.kayshapero.net
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> said
>> So the folks at DARPA have taken things a step or three further along.
>
>RFID range scales as the fourth root of power. It's essentially radar.
That depends on your technology. For continuous readout, with a
'broadcast power' chip it is basically true, but if you can self power
the chip somehow then it's back to square law. Ah, another need for
that miracle battery (or a fuel cell running on blood sugar?).
Ditto if you are willing to have the chip store power (even broadcast
power) and pulse once when it has enough - you trade off update
frequency for range (you really don't need umpteen updates per second
for a walking person surely).
The small size of the antenna is a problem, in that it limits the rate
you can put energy into (or get a signal out of) the system. I'm sure we
could do much better if we could wrap an antenna around a whole person,
instead of just using the area/volume of the RFID itself.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
13,737 Km walked. 2,584 Km PROWs surveyed. 46.6% complete.
William Black
"Kay Shapero" <k...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.23e5b2e11...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <G5KdndaNlIpeJefU...@giganews.com>, tinmimus99
> @hotmail.com says...
>
>> Or playing video-games with flying drones all over Western Pakistan--
>> there was a recent "hit" there that took out a couple of genyoowine al
>> Qaeda operatives, one a long-time planner for the group, that involved
>> at least six drones buzzing around over the village in question:
>>
>
> Hmm... speaking of things buzzing around, why not just release a few
> clouds of mosquitoes about someplace we have to get into. Make one heck
> of a distraction.
>
It's South Asia.
In what way would a few more mosquitoes change things?
If there's one thing people in South Asia are good at it's industrial level
pest control.
Mike Ash
Yep, there are certainly ways around the problem (otherwise your cell
phone would never work!) but they take you away from the pet-finder RFID
that the other poster was talking about.
And no matter what your technology, if it's anything we know today then
having it be detectable from a distance and having it be unnoticeable by
the carrier are mutually exclusive.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Are you questioning the Computer, Citizen?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <G5KdndaNlIpeJefU...@giganews.com>, tinmimus99
> @hotmail.com says...
>
>> Or playing video-games with flying drones all over Western Pakistan--
>> there was a recent "hit" there that took out a couple of genyoowine al
>> Qaeda operatives, one a long-time planner for the group, that involved
>> at least six drones buzzing around over the village in question:
>>
>
> Hmm... speaking of things buzzing around, why not just release a few
> clouds of mosquitoes about someplace we have to get into. Make one heck
> of a distraction.
>
There is current research underway to, in essence, make small insects
into bionic spies and communications "bugs" in a literal sense.
Dimensional Traveler
The Computer is your Friend. If you are not The Computer's Friend you will
be used as reactor shielding. The Computer is your Friend.
Joy Beeson
> And no matter what your technology, if it's anything we know today then
> having it be detectable from a distance and having it be unnoticeable by
> the carrier are mutually exclusive.
So you disguise it as something the user *wants* to have permanently
attached.
Or just change the guts in his cell phone.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
phil of the future
"Marcus L. Rowland" <forgotte...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:uIX+$Wf+U2...@00.d0.59.f5.d0.2a...
> Over distances of a few inches to a couple of feet maximum, which is why a
> vet has to use a hand-held scanner to locate and read one. Next question?
Why is the idea that the US government might have access to something more
advanced so unthinkable?
phil of the future
"eatfastnoodle" <d12s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:14213f79-3c3e-48dd...@r32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 23, 9:57 am, "phil of the future" <P...@the.future> wrote:
> But a couple of events twigged my antennae:
>
> In Bob Woodward's latest book he alludes to amazing technological methods
> employed by the US military to break the insurgency in Iraq. For reasons
> of
> national security he did not describe them but:
>
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-rutten10-2008sep10,0,22742...
>
> Woodward's appraisal is more nuanced. He argues that the current situation
> was created by the confluence of three forces of which the troop surge may
> be the least consequential. More important is a hyper-secret new program
> (by
> inference, a combination of technology and operational techniques) that
> has
> allowed U.S. forces to identify, locate and kill huge numbers of the
> insurgency's leaders, including members of Al Qaeda. When military and
> White
> House officials learned that Woodward knew of the secret program, they
> asked
> that he withhold any details because publication would endanger the
> operation and compromise its use elsewhere. Responsible though Woodward's
> decision may be, it lends a fairly frustrating opacity to what is "The War
> Within's" biggest revelation
> ===============================================
The secret weapon is green buck, lots of them. The US splurged money
on buying off Sunni tribesmen, thus creating the Awaking Council that
turned out to be so effective in taming the Sunni
=============================
So you disagree with Woodward's account?
William Black
"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:497cb41f$0$1620$742e...@news.sonic.net...
This month only fifteen percent of the new explosive tracking devices have
failed catastrophically.
Remember Citizen. The security of the Alpha Complex Computer comes before
all other things. It may be your happy duty to sacrifice yourself for the
wellbeing of the computer.
<God, aren't we sad...>
phil of the future
"Joy Beeson" <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:1m8qn45vffptkjefr...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:03:21 -0500, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
>> And no matter what your technology, if it's anything we know today then
>> having it be detectable from a distance and having it be unnoticeable by
>> the carrier are mutually exclusive.
>
> So you disguise it as something the user *wants* to have permanently
> attached.
>
> Or just change the guts in his cell phone.
cell phone with greater frequency than their underwear.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
Because those of us who do WORK in this area WITH the U.S. Government
have an extremely good idea of what can and cannot physically be done
right now.
For a Conspiracy Theory Novel, your idea would work. But it's simply
unworkable in the context of current technology.
Mike Ash
Because it's the electronics equivalent of the US government having a
faster-than-light star drive while the rest of us are still piddling
around with rockets trying to get back to the Moon again.
Dimensional Traveler
Not to mention that it probably wouldn't get past the "lowest bidder" vendor
selection....
PV
>So the folks at DARPA have taken things a step or three further along.
No they haven't - an RFID implant would be completely stupid. An active
implant would be easily detectable, and passive ones require
super-directionality to read past a couple feet. The longest-range ones are
in the few tens of meters area, but require rather delivate equipment to
read. If you can ping such an RFID, it's because you're aiming a focused
antenna directly at them from a distance where a cheap rifle would be
effective for killing them. You can't broadcast an RFID signal at
sufficient power to blanket a village without cooking everyone.
Most of the tracking games played these days are either done with overhead
imaging from drones, or by remotely activating cellphones. Why stick an
implant on someone when they're wearing a device which actually tells you
their location? *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
PV
>Ditto if you are willing to have the chip store power (even broadcast
>power) and pulse once when it has enough - you trade off update
>frequency for range (you really don't need umpteen updates per second
>for a walking person surely).
And you do that undetectably how? *
DougL
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> > phil of the future wrote:
> >> "Marcus L. Rowland" <forgottenfutu...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >>news:uIX+$Wf+U2...@00.d0.59.f5.d0.2a...
> >>> Over distances of a few inches to a couple of feet maximum, which is
> >>> why a vet has to use a hand-held scanner to locate and read one.
> >>> Next question?
> >> Why is the idea that the US government might have access to something
> >> more advanced so unthinkable?
> > Because those of us who do WORK in this area WITH the U.S. Government
> > have an extremely good idea of what can and cannot physically be done
> > right now.
>
> > For a Conspiracy Theory Novel, your idea would work. But it's simply
> > unworkable in the context of current technology.
> Not to mention that it probably wouldn't get past the "lowest bidder" vendor
> selection....
I suspect most black stuff is single source, certainly the RFP goes
only to people selected by the program. "Low bidder" is a nice joke,
but it isn't why this doesn't work.
The key point is that this is something (implanted sensors and
communication) where private and medical types are probably at a
higher level than the Pentagon (heck, the VA is probably more advanced
on implanted electronics than DoD).
So DoD/NSA/DARPA/CIA/whoever would be contracting it out (and in fact
similar work is being contracted out as expected). And the winning
contractor would almost certainly be someone who already had most of
the pieces for unclassified non-military work.
For this no one has most of the pieces (so far, this week). Hence no
such program is at all likely to be successful (yet).
Give it some time, there's nothing physically impossible about a bio-
powered phased array antenna that transmits all sorts of info
(including location) to a convienent Iridium style sattelite at
regular intervals for a reasonable energy cost.
DougL
PV
>cell phone with greater frequency than their underwear.
You might think so, but this doesn't seem to be the case - they keep
tracking down bad guys this way all the time.
People seem to think that terrorists are technolically elite and
super-smart, but most of them are about as clever as the people who post
comments to youtube, and probably more technologically backward.
It helps to remember that the worst terrorist attack of all time was
carried out using office supplies. *
PV
>advanced so unthinkable?
Because the US government is still, fortunately, limited by the laws of
physics. *
peachy ashie passion
>
History has proven that their ability to keep secrets makes this
unlikely at best?
Kay Shapero
willia...@hotmail.co.uk says...
> >
>
> It's South Asia.
>
> In what way would a few more mosquitoes change things?
>
> If there's one thing people in South Asia are good at it's industrial level
> pest control.
>
Hmmm... good point. Other way around then - figure out a way to lure
every single bug for about ten square miles into a trap, then give the
traps to the locals if they quit shooting at us. :)
Kay Shapero
sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com says...
used to help prevent/resolve a murder. There was something about
providing the wouldbe murderer with the memory of how the almost victim
felt when they saw the knife descending on them just before the attack
was interrupted so that he'd know better in future or something. The
title of which I forget... oh group mind????
Robert A. Woodward
Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
Could it had been "Identification" by Christopher Anvil (May 1961
issue of _Analog SF)?
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Walter Bushell
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person PV <pv+u...@pobox.com> said
>GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> writes:
>>Ditto if you are willing to have the chip store power (even broadcast
>>power) and pulse once when it has enough - you trade off update
>>frequency for range (you really don't need umpteen updates per second
>>for a walking person surely).
>
>And you do that undetectably how? *
Depends what you mean by undetectable - obviously a body scan would spot
anything, but you can certainly have a chip which only actively
broadcasts if it sees the right encoded signal incoming.
An actively broadcasting chip is detectable by anyone with a receiver,
even if they can't decode the message.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
PV
>Depends what you mean by undetectable - obviously a body scan would spot
>anything, but you can certainly have a chip which only actively
>broadcasts if it sees the right encoded signal incoming.
If it's listening for a signal, it has a receiver that is using power and
can be detected.
>An actively broadcasting chip is detectable by anyone with a receiver,
>even if they can't decode the message.
All the more reason not to implant it - you'd want something like that to
be for short term use only, or attached to something that you would expect
to make some radio noise. That's why using cellphones as beacons has become
so popular. You don't need to listen in - you just have to know they're
carrying one. *
Marcus L. Rowland
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
http://www.forgottenfutures.org/
LJ:ffutures http://www.forgottenfutures.co.uk/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
Diana: Warrior Princess & Elvis: The Legendary Tours
The Original Flatland Role Playing Game
phil of the future
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:glg8gh$kov$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> phil of the future wrote:
>> So the folks at DARPA have taken things a step or three further along.
>
>
> I work with the U.S. Military on exactly this kind of technology.
>
> No, they haven't. I can't tell you exactly what they CAN do, but the kind
> of thing you're talking about is a couple of technology generations away
> if you want them to be so inconspicuous that the victim doesn't know he's
> tagged.
Whether true or not, could you say otherwise if you were in a position to
know?
phil of the future
"PV" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:i4SdnVHHv5HvvePU...@supernews.com...
> "phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> writes:
>> I'm sure part of the SOP of your average insurgent/terrorist is to change
>>cell phone with greater frequency than their underwear.
>
> You might think so, but this doesn't seem to be the case - they keep
> tracking down bad guys this way all the time.
And according to Bob Woodward there is some level of advanced technology
involved.
phil of the future
> GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> writes:
>>Ditto if you are willing to have the chip store power (even broadcast
>>power) and pulse once when it has enough - you trade off update
>>frequency for range (you really don't need umpteen updates per second
>>for a walking person surely).
>
> And you do that undetectably how? *
Undetectably? Not necessarily. But perhaps difficult to detect without some
fairly modern technology not easily available in the caves of the
Paki-Afghani tribal areas or the Sunni Triangle.
phil of the future
"Rebecca Rice" <philos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uxOel.18697$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Marcus L. Rowland wrote:
>> In message <gldo8v$nkv$1...@news.datemas.de>, phil of the future
>> <Ph...@the.future> writes
>>>
>>> "Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3b2e1af5-a707-441a...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com..>.
>>> On Jan 23, 8:57 am, "phil of the future" <P...@the.future> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What kind of battery would you use?
>>>
>>> Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
>>>
>>>> How much power would the device
>>>> have?
>>>
>>> Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
>>>
>>>> How small would it have to be not to be noticed?
>>>
>>> Same as an RFID or pet chip implant.
>>>
>>>> Totally impractical.
>>>
>>> Then how do pet implants and RFID's work?
>>
>> a vet has to use a hand-held scanner to locate and read one. Next
>> question?
>>
>> internal power supply. To be picked up at greater range a transmitter
>> would have to be much bigger, and have its own power supply. It would be
>> large enough that even a routine search or medical examination would spot
>> it, and it would be virtually impossible for the carrier not to notice it
>> was inside his body.
Is it not possible that instead of increasing the range of the RFID or chip
the sensitivity of the detector is made greater? No size limitation to a
satellite ground station nor even much to a circling AWACs.
> To give you an idea, there are collars (apparently commonly used with
> hunting dogs) that will in fact transmit their GPS location, so you can go
> find a dog that's still trailing when you are ready to head home. These
> are collars in order to contain the batteries, etc., but will give an idea
> of the size that you are talking about.
this is more or less what I am thinking. of, take the typical tracking
collar but only assume a level of miniaturation that allows implantation.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:glg8gh$kov$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> phil of the future wrote:
>
>>> So the folks at DARPA have taken things a step or three further along.
>>
>>
>> I work with the U.S. Military on exactly this kind of technology.
>>
>> No, they haven't. I can't tell you exactly what they CAN do, but the
>> kind of thing you're talking about is a couple of technology
>> generations away if you want them to be so inconspicuous that the
>> victim doesn't know he's tagged.
>
> Whether true or not, could you say otherwise if you were in a position
> to know?
Of course I could. Then I'd have them kill you if it was necessary.
The limitations are well known to those in the field. I **WISH** I
could do the stuff you talk about; it would solve at least two of the
MAJOR problems I'm facing on two of my projects (one for the Navy, one
for the Army). Unfortunately, I canna change the laws o' physics, Jim.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
The sensitivity needed is (at least) going to vary as the square of the
distance. If the normal detection range is, say, one foot, then at two
feet it has to be 4 times as sensitive, at 4 feet 16 times as senstive,
and so on. To detect from orbit? You'll need a satellite that looks like
the Death Star, something that's basically nothing but a honkin' huge
antenna array hundreds of miles across.
>
>> To give you an idea, there are collars (apparently commonly used with
>> hunting dogs) that will in fact transmit their GPS location, so you
>> can go find a dog that's still trailing when you are ready to head
>> home. These are collars in order to contain the batteries, etc., but
>> will give an idea of the size that you are talking about.
>
> this is more or less what I am thinking. of, take the typical tracking
> collar but only assume a level of miniaturation that allows implantation.
Which shows you know nothing of miniaturization or the problems that
accompany it. You can use that kind of handwave in an SF story
(especially one set far enough in the future), but in the modern world
you ram STRAIGHT into a couple of very, VERY intractable problems, the
two most prominent of them being RF efficiency versus wavelength, and --
most importantly -- power supply.
Most of the size of such collars is the battery, and current batteries
SUCK at scaling down. More and more of the weight ends up as useless
parasitic mass. There are a few designs JUST starting to come into
existence that might solve this to some extent, but they'll need at
least two or three generations to become good enough to power the kind
of thing you're talking about.
Kay Shapero
robe...@drizzle.com says...
the story, but it was very much his style of thing.
Sean O'Hara
future declared:
>> tracking down bad guys this way all the time.
>
> And according to Bob Woodward there is some level of advanced technology
> involved.
>
After the last eight years, there's one thing conservatives and
liberals can all agree on -- Bob Woodward couldn't have less
credibility if he hired Jason Blair and Stephen Glass as research
assistants.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Randy Marsh: The strength of this country is the ability to do one
thing and say another.
-South Park
Robert A. Woodward
Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <robertaw-EC8B13...@news.individual.net>,
> robe...@drizzle.com says...
> > In article <MPG.23e83615d...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> > Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <gli95e$38k$2...@news.motzarella.org>,
> > > sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com says...
<SNIP recon drones and the like>
> > > >
> > > > There is current research underway to, in essence, make small insects
> > > > into bionic spies and communications "bugs" in a literal sense.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Sounds like a story I saw in Analog way back when though I think it was
> > > used to help prevent/resolve a murder. There was something about
> > > providing the wouldbe murderer with the memory of how the almost victim
> > > felt when they saw the knife descending on them just before the attack
> > > was interrupted so that he'd know better in future or something. The
> > > title of which I forget... oh group mind????
> >
> > Could it had been "Identification" by Christopher Anvil (May 1961
> > issue of _Analog SF)?
> >
> Quite possibly - I can't find a reference that tells me anything about
> the story, but it was very much his style of thing.
"Identification" is one of the stories in the collection
_Prescription for Chaos_ that Baen will release in February.
Derek Lyons
>phil of the future wrote:
>
>> Is it not possible that instead of increasing the range of the RFID or
>> chip the sensitivity of the detector is made greater? No size limitation
>> to a satellite ground station nor even much to a circling AWACs.
>
> The sensitivity needed is (at least) going to vary as the square of the
>distance. If the normal detection range is, say, one foot, then at two
>feet it has to be 4 times as sensitive, at 4 feet 16 times as senstive,
>and so on. To detect from orbit? You'll need a satellite that looks like
>the Death Star, something that's basically nothing but a honkin' huge
>antenna array hundreds of miles across.
Not to mention that signal processing to sort signal from noise and
the sort the desired signal from the unwanted signals will be Very
Amusing Problem.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Dimensional Traveler
And here I thought part of the job of a Skiffy writer _was_ changing the
laws of physics. *grin*
Mad Hamish
>"phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> writes:
>> I'm sure part of the SOP of your average insurgent/terrorist is to change
>>cell phone with greater frequency than their underwear.
>
>You might think so, but this doesn't seem to be the case - they keep
>tracking down bad guys this way all the time.
>
Yes, but I'm sure they change underwear very rarely.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
William Black
"phil of the future" <Ph...@the.future> wrote in message
news:gljvuq$vat$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Joy Beeson" <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1m8qn45vffptkjefr...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:03:21 -0500, Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And no matter what your technology, if it's anything we know today then
>>> having it be detectable from a distance and having it be unnoticeable by
>>> the carrier are mutually exclusive.
>>
>> So you disguise it as something the user *wants* to have permanently
>> attached.
>>
>> Or just change the guts in his cell phone.
> cell phone with greater frequency than their underwear.
Most Third World countries control access to SIM cards.
You can't get hold of one without the appropriate documentation and the
mobile phone system operator checks now and again to make sure the original
customer has the SIM.
It's a lot like opening a bank account in the US or UK.
Of course it doesn't stop the bad guys getting mobile phones, but it makes
their operations a lot more difficult.
Indian police have had some considerable success tracing bad guys via their
phones.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> phil of the future wrote:
>>
>>> Is it not possible that instead of increasing the range of the RFID or
>>> chip the sensitivity of the detector is made greater? No size limitation
>>> to a satellite ground station nor even much to a circling AWACs.
>> The sensitivity needed is (at least) going to vary as the square of the
>> distance. If the normal detection range is, say, one foot, then at two
>> feet it has to be 4 times as sensitive, at 4 feet 16 times as senstive,
>> and so on. To detect from orbit? You'll need a satellite that looks like
>> the Death Star, something that's basically nothing but a honkin' huge
>> antenna array hundreds of miles across.
>
> Not to mention that signal processing to sort signal from noise and
> the sort the desired signal from the unwanted signals will be Very
> Amusing Problem.
I wasn't even THINKING about going there; discussing that kind of stuff
is what gets our engineers into a whining frame of mind.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
The engineers complain when I used those talents in my proposals.
Something about asking them to actually DO what I wrote up seems to
bother them.
phil of the future
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4986fd04....@news.supernews.com...
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>phil of the future wrote:
>>
>>> Is it not possible that instead of increasing the range of the RFID or
>>> chip the sensitivity of the detector is made greater? No size limitation
>>> to a satellite ground station nor even much to a circling AWACs.
>>
>> The sensitivity needed is (at least) going to vary as the square of the
>>distance. If the normal detection range is, say, one foot, then at two
>>feet it has to be 4 times as sensitive, at 4 feet 16 times as senstive,
>>and so on. To detect from orbit? You'll need a satellite that looks like
>>the Death Star, something that's basically nothing but a honkin' huge
>>antenna array hundreds of miles across.
>
> Not to mention that signal processing to sort signal from noise and
> the sort the desired signal from the unwanted signals will be Very
> Amusing Problem.
I didn't say it would be trivial.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
> "Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4986fd04....@news.supernews.com...
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> phil of the future wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it not possible that instead of increasing the range of the RFID or
>>>> chip the sensitivity of the detector is made greater? No size
>>>> limitation
>>>> to a satellite ground station nor even much to a circling AWACs.
>>>
>>> The sensitivity needed is (at least) going to vary as the square of the
>>> distance. If the normal detection range is, say, one foot, then at two
>>> feet it has to be 4 times as sensitive, at 4 feet 16 times as senstive,
>>> and so on. To detect from orbit? You'll need a satellite that looks like
>>> the Death Star, something that's basically nothing but a honkin' huge
>>> antenna array hundreds of miles across.
>>
>> Not to mention that signal processing to sort signal from noise and
>> the sort the desired signal from the unwanted signals will be Very
>> Amusing Problem.
>
> I didn't say it would be trivial.
It's NOT FEASIBLE today.
20-30 years from now, yes.
phil of the future
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:glptcr$1b0$3...@news.motzarella.org...
No offence to your position but I would not rule out that there might exist
a classified level of technology that is that advanced.
It may not be so. By nature it is unproveable. But I would never rule it
out.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:glptcr$1b0$3...@news.motzarella.org...
>> phil of the future wrote:
>>>
>>> "Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4986fd04....@news.supernews.com...
>>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Not to mention that signal processing to sort signal from noise and
>>>> the sort the desired signal from the unwanted signals will be Very
>>>> Amusing Problem.
>>>
>>> I didn't say it would be trivial.
>>
>> It's NOT FEASIBLE today.
>>
>> 20-30 years from now, yes.
>
> No offence to your position but I would not rule out that there might
> exist a classified level of technology that is that advanced.
I would, because such technology does not exist in a vacuum. To be able
to manufacture such things would require a technology base and support
industries that don't exist.
Unless you want to postulate the U.S. government has, not just secret
military installations, but entire secret INDUSTRIES -- chip fabs,
manufacturing plants, etc. -- you simply can't do it.
And at that point you've gone past even James Bond and into
Illuminatus! territory.
Mike Ash
I would. This is the kind of thinking that gets you started saying that
you can't rule out gnomes and fairies and invisible pink unicorns. At
some point you just have to say, there is no evidence for any such
thing, therefore it does not exist. Even if it does exist, in the
absence of any evidence, what's the difference?
The idea that the US government is vastly ahead of publicly-available
technology is amusing but simply has no basis in reality. It was true
for a while in a few sectors of technology such as aerospace and
cryptography, and it remains true today in select areas like nuclear
weapons design, but it is not and *never has been* true of electronics.
In fact all available evidence is that the reverse is true: the civilian
sector tends to be significantly ahead of the government when it comes
to electronics technology, simply because the government is a large
lumbering beast with procurement cycles long enough to ensure that
they're always working with yesterday's tech.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And also because their requirements for performance are often WAY
beyond those of civilians. If your SpecialComm gadget breaks down in
your home, you curse and order another. If SpecialComm breaks down on
the battlefield, you and your friends may never go home again, depending
on exactly what SpecialComm was used for. Milspec testing takes TIME,
verifying that it will survive in the field takes even more time.
William Black
> And also because their requirements for performance are often WAY beyond
> those of civilians. If your SpecialComm gadget breaks down in your home,
> you curse and order another. If SpecialComm breaks down on the
> battlefield, you and your friends may never go home again, depending on
> exactly what SpecialComm was used for. Milspec testing takes TIME,
> verifying that it will survive in the field takes even more time.
That used to be the case but you're a touch out of date now.
In GW2 the allies found they needed tens of thousands of extra GPS units.
They just bought twice as many as they needed right off the shelf, dumped
the encryption requirement usually introduced in time of conflict and went
right on.
These days the COTS (Commercial off the shelf) option is one most
sophisticated military forces are prepared to accept as normal.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:glq3pc$v5t$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
>> And also because their requirements for performance are often WAY
>> beyond those of civilians. If your SpecialComm gadget breaks down in
>> your home, you curse and order another. If SpecialComm breaks down on
>> the battlefield, you and your friends may never go home again,
>> depending on exactly what SpecialComm was used for. Milspec testing
>> takes TIME, verifying that it will survive in the field takes even
>> more time.
>
> That used to be the case but you're a touch out of date now.
>
> In GW2 the allies found they needed tens of thousands of extra GPS units.
>
> They just bought twice as many as they needed right off the shelf,
> dumped the encryption requirement usually introduced in time of conflict
> and went right on.
>
> These days the COTS (Commercial off the shelf) option is one most
> sophisticated military forces are prepared to accept as normal.
>
No, they're prepared to accept as "stopgap to take care of stuff that
we can't handle right now".
As I work with the military in these areas directly, I assure you they
are NOT willing to do that if they can avoid it. Generally what they do
is buy the COTS and say "I want something just like that, only it does
X, Y, and Z as well, is completely secure, and survives being run over
by a tank."
William Black
Depends on which military you work with.
My experience with British military is that they're usually happy with the
ruggedized stuff made for people like the oil industry as long as it works
and delivers the required performance.
They just slap some olive green paint on it and pretend it's issue...
GSV Three Minds in a Can
William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> said
>
>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:glq3pc$v5t$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
>> And also because their requirements for performance are often WAY
>>beyond those of civilians. If your SpecialComm gadget breaks down in
>>your home, you curse and order another. If SpecialComm breaks down on
>>the battlefield, you and your friends may never go home again,
>>depending on exactly what SpecialComm was used for. Milspec testing
>>takes TIME, verifying that it will survive in the field takes even more time.
>
>That used to be the case but you're a touch out of date now.
>
>In GW2 the allies found they needed tens of thousands of extra GPS units.
>
>They just bought twice as many as they needed right off the shelf,
>dumped the encryption requirement usually introduced in time of
>conflict and went right on.
>
>These days the COTS (Commercial off the shelf) option is one most
>sophisticated military forces are prepared to accept as normal.
In times of trouble t'was ever thus. ISTR that at Falklands conflict
time the Royal Navy ripped out some steam driven computers in their
ships and plugged in a PDP11 or whatever.
But that just demonstrates the assertion - milspec electronics is / has
always been at least a generation behind COTS (and 10x the price,
weight, whatever).
Now =spook grade= (as supplied to Langley or the NSA or wherever)
probably has a whole different spec than the stuff the Pentagon wants.
ObSong - 'I sold a hammer to the pentagon', by Tom Paxton ...
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
13,737 Km walked. 2,584 Km PROWs surveyed. 46.6% complete.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Well, yes. As a U.S. citizen in a U.S. R&D firm, that would be the U.S.
military; currently I work with NAVAIR, ONR, and Army Medical Corps.
William Black
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fk6XbLGe...@from.is.invalid...
> Bitstring <glq592$ecj$1...@news.motzarella.org>, from the wonderful person
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> said
>>
>>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in message
>>news:glq3pc$v5t$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>>> And also because their requirements for performance are often WAY beyond
>>> those of civilians. If your SpecialComm gadget breaks down in your home,
>>> you curse and order another. If SpecialComm breaks down on the
>>> battlefield, you and your friends may never go home again, depending on
>>> exactly what SpecialComm was used for. Milspec testing takes TIME,
>>> verifying that it will survive in the field takes even more time.
>>
>>That used to be the case but you're a touch out of date now.
>>
>>In GW2 the allies found they needed tens of thousands of extra GPS units.
>>
>>They just bought twice as many as they needed right off the shelf, dumped
>>the encryption requirement usually introduced in time of conflict and went
>>right on.
>>
>>These days the COTS (Commercial off the shelf) option is one most
>>sophisticated military forces are prepared to accept as normal.
>
> In times of trouble t'was ever thus. ISTR that at Falklands conflict time
> the Royal Navy ripped out some steam driven computers in their ships and
> plugged in a PDP11 or whatever.
I'd love some sort of proof of that.
In a press release the RN specifically said 'You go with what you've got and
you find out what works when you get there.'
The one thing nobody in any military organisation ever wants to do these
days is debug nice shiny new computers while people are dropping bombs on
you.
The Type 22 escorts were pretty much state of the art anyway.
Even so I think HMS Broadsword's Seawolf installation failed at least once
with tragic consequences.
Dimensional Traveler
So they have to work a little harder. Just remind them that bumblebees
can't fly.
Dimensional Traveler
> phil of the future wrote:
>>
>> "Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4986fd04....@news.supernews.com...
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> phil of the future wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is it not possible that instead of increasing the range of the
>>>>> RFID or chip the sensitivity of the detector is made greater? No
>>>>> size limitation
>>>>> to a satellite ground station nor even much to a circling AWACs.
>>>>
>>>> The sensitivity needed is (at least) going to vary as the square
>>>> of the distance. If the normal detection range is, say, one foot,
>>>> then at two feet it has to be 4 times as sensitive, at 4 feet 16
>>>> times as senstive, and so on. To detect from orbit? You'll need a
>>>> satellite that looks like the Death Star, something that's
>>>> basically nothing but a honkin' huge antenna array hundreds of
>>>> miles across.
>>>
>>> Not to mention that signal processing to sort signal from noise and
>>> the sort the desired signal from the unwanted signals will be Very
>>> Amusing Problem.
>>
>> I didn't say it would be trivial.
>
> It's NOT FEASIBLE today.
>
> 20-30 years from now, yes.
Ah ha! So you admit the Government has a time machine!! *grin* (You know
there's a conspiracy theory website claiming that somewhere and this is
being posted to a Sci-Fi newsgroup....)
Mike Ash
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> And also because their requirements for performance are often WAY
> beyond those of civilians. If your SpecialComm gadget breaks down in
> your home, you curse and order another. If SpecialComm breaks down on
> the battlefield, you and your friends may never go home again, depending
> on exactly what SpecialComm was used for. Milspec testing takes TIME,
> verifying that it will survive in the field takes even more time.
Yeah, good point. Usually paying 100x the money for something 10x as
reliable is a poor tradeoff in the electronics world, but the military
has a different perspective on these things.
In any case, the end point is, if you want to see the cutting edge in
RFID technology, go to whatever university is publishing the best papers
on the stuff, or whatever company is leading the pack, don't look to the
government.
PV
>Is it not possible that instead of increasing the range of the RFID or chip
>the sensitivity of the detector is made greater? No size limitation to a
>satellite ground station nor even much to a circling AWACs.
No. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
PV
>> I didn't say it would be trivial.
>
> It's NOT FEASIBLE today.
>
> 20-30 years from now, yes.
I think that's making some rather extremely generous assumptions about
advances in energy storage, nanoscale electronics, digital signal
processing, and radio transmitter design. Picking up a signal from a
fingernail-sized transmitter and localizing it from orbit is gonna be a
bitch even with 30 years of quantum leaps, let alone actually powering the
thing for any significant amount of time.
When it comes down to it, this sounds a lot like a solution for a
nonexistent problem anyway. *
PV
>a classified level of technology that is that advanced.
>
>It may not be so. By nature it is unproveable. But I would never rule it
>out.
Why not? We don't even know how to begin to address the problem.
"Classified" doesn't mean magic. It often doesn't even mean "advanced", but
simply "something we're doing that we'd rather not talk about". *
PV
>involved.
And how does Bob Woodward define "advanced"? I would guess he doesn't
define it as "magic". *
PV
>After the last eight years, there's one thing conservatives and
>liberals can all agree on -- Bob Woodward couldn't have less
>credibility if he hired Jason Blair and Stephen Glass as research
>assistants.
That's a good point. Woodward is an "access journalist", and if the runup
to GWII proved anything, it's that access journalists are simply propaganda
mouthpieces. Judith Miller anyone? *
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>> I didn't say it would be trivial.
>> It's NOT FEASIBLE today.
>>
>> 20-30 years from now, yes.
>
> I think that's making some rather extremely generous assumptions about
> advances in energy storage, nanoscale electronics, digital signal
> processing, and radio transmitter design. Picking up a signal from a
> fingernail-sized transmitter and localizing it from orbit is gonna be a
> bitch even with 30 years of quantum leaps, let alone actually powering the
> thing for any significant amount of time.
Depends on how often it transmits. Power harvesting from the body it's
in and transmitting a quick blip once a week might work. The
electronics, not a problem. I'm working on a nonclassified project which
will have a transmitter, sensor, and power in a 3x3x1mm package, and
there's no question the electronics can be made more than small enough
for the job.
Paul
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
Ahem... think GPS. What was described is not exactly feasible, no, but
you can get the
same effect with different methods. ;)
-Paul
Kay Shapero
robe...@drizzle.com says...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Sounds like a story I saw in Analog way back when though I think it was
> > > > used to help prevent/resolve a murder. There was something about
> > > > providing the wouldbe murderer with the memory of how the almost victim
> > > > felt when they saw the knife descending on them just before the attack
> > > > was interrupted so that he'd know better in future or something. The
> > > > title of which I forget... oh group mind????
> > >
> > > Could it had been "Identification" by Christopher Anvil (May 1961
> > > issue of _Analog SF)?
> > >
> > Quite possibly - I can't find a reference that tells me anything about
> > the story, but it was very much his style of thing.
>
> "Identification" is one of the stories in the collection
> _Prescription for Chaos_ that Baen will release in February.
>
Alas, it's not one of the ones they show a sample of, but I'll probably
buy it next month and then check. Offhand, though, given that it's
under "crime and punishment", I'd say the odds are high this is the
story.
--
Kay Shapero
address munged, email kay at following domain
http://www.kayshapero.net
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, you can't get "the same effect" with GPS. The effect was implanting
something in people that was so small and innocuous that you could have
successfully implanted it without them having any idea it was there.
While GPS chips themselves are quite small, all the support material --
especially power source -- adds up to a package that's not really going
to fill the bill.
phil of the future
"peachy ashie passion" <exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G4rfl.2453$aI1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> phil of the future wrote:
>>
>> news:uIX+$Wf+U2...@00.d0.59.f5.d0.2a...
>>> Over distances of a few inches to a couple of feet maximum, which is why
>>> a vet has to use a hand-held scanner to locate and read one. Next
>>> question?
>>
>> Why is the idea that the US government might have access to something
>> more advanced so unthinkable?
>
> History has proven that their ability to keep secrets makes this
> unlikely at best?
But how would one know if they were successful at keeping them?
phil of the future
"PV" <pv+u...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:vIadnTWUvMzpfx3U...@supernews.com...
> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> writes:
>>After the last eight years, there's one thing conservatives and
>>liberals can all agree on -- Bob Woodward couldn't have less
>>credibility if he hired Jason Blair and Stephen Glass as research
>>assistants.
>
> That's a good point. Woodward is an "access journalist", and if the runup
> to GWII proved anything, it's that access journalists are simply
> propaganda
> mouthpieces. Judith Miller anyone?
While I concede he lacks the stature of some random usenet poster with
internet access but surely his bona fides should count for something?
Sean O'Hara
future declared:
What, that he helped bring down Nixon 35 years ago? Sure, great
accomplishment. But in the last 8 years he's demonstrated an amazing
credulity that's led him to repeat whatever he's told uncritically.
If one of his interview subjects told him the US has a UFO stored at
Wright-Patterson, he'd put that in his book too.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Fry: I bet you Leela's holding out for a nice guy with one eye.
Bender: That'll take forever. What she ought to do is find a nice
guy with two eyes and poke one out.
-Futurama
PR
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> > On 2009-01-28 09:25:15 -0600, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> >>>news:4986fd04....@news.supernews.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seen any of the commercial mini GPS systems lately? You can pretty
easily plant one on someone,
or on a vehicle, and get the effect of tracking them. Easily slips
into a backpack, clothes, etc. In fact,
plant a half dozen of the little buggers. And that is the *commercial*
side, available over the net.
http://www.skytrx.com/skytrx/mini-tracker.html
The effect is that you can track 'em with an unnoticed device. In this
case, it isn't feasible to implant one
in a person, and I agreed with you on that. But you can get the same
effect without an implant, today,
and without military grade devices.
Absolutely amazing to me. And irritating to my kids who have not yet
figured out where dad hid the
GPS devices - or how dad "knew" #2 son borrowed truck to go over to a
friend's house and somehow
got there via a high school football game 45 miles away... <grin>
-Paul
Mike Ash
<dc6c4e7f-b081-40c3...@p23g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,
PR <paul.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seen any of the commercial mini GPS systems lately? You can pretty
> easily plant one on someone,
> or on a vehicle, and get the effect of tracking them. Easily slips
> into a backpack, clothes, etc. In fact,
> plant a half dozen of the little buggers. And that is the *commercial*
> side, available over the net.
>
> http://www.skytrx.com/skytrx/mini-tracker.html
>
> The effect is that you can track 'em with an unnoticed device. In this
> case, it isn't feasible to implant one
> in a person, and I agreed with you on that. But you can get the same
> effect without an implant, today,
> and without military grade devices.
>
> Absolutely amazing to me. And irritating to my kids who have not yet
> figured out where dad hid the
> GPS devices - or how dad "knew" #2 son borrowed truck to go over to a
> friend's house and somehow
> got there via a high school football game 45 miles away... <grin>
This doesn't work for the proposed scenario for two reasons:
1) It's huge. Even a basic search will turn it up, and the most basic
precautions will get rid of it. Your kids can't find it because they
don't want to take the time, and they can't ditch it because they don't
want to get rid of their backpack and all of their clothes. No such
constraints apply here.
2) It doesn't transmit. You have to recover the thing to download the
data. This introduces a catch-22 when the whole point of using the
device is to find the person wearing the thing.
It's great for finding out where someone has been if they don't care
*too* much about it (and and will face consequences for disabling it!)
but it's completely useless for tracking someone remotely.
PV
>internet access but surely his bona fides should count for something?
Nobody's "bona fides" count for anything if they don't have facts to back
up their claims. Period. *
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Absolutely amazing to me. And irritating to my kids who have not yet
> figured out where dad hid the
> GPS devices - or how dad "knew" #2 son borrowed truck to go over to a
> friend's house and somehow
> got there via a high school football game 45 miles away... <grin>
>
If my dad ever did that kind of tracking to me, I would have left home
immediately and never, ever have spoken to him again in his lifetime,
even when he got cancer.
il...@rcn.com
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> PR wrote:
> > Absolutely amazing to me. And irritating to my kids who have not yet
> > figured out where dad hid the
> > GPS devices - or how dad "knew" #2 son borrowed truck to go over to a
> > friend's house and somehow
> > got there via a high school football game 45 miles away... <grin>
>
> If my dad ever did that kind of tracking to me, I would have left home
> immediately and never, ever have spoken to him again in his lifetime,
> even when he got cancer.
I wouldn't have. Instead I would have found the GPS unit, soaked it in
salt water, then put it back where it was.
il...@rcn.com
David Harmon
(Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote,
>PR wrote:
>
>> Absolutely amazing to me. And irritating to my kids who have not yet
>> figured out where dad hid the
>> GPS devices - or how dad "knew" #2 son borrowed truck to go over to a
>> friend's house and somehow
>> got there via a high school football game 45 miles away... <grin>
>>
>
> If my dad ever did that kind of tracking to me, I would have left home
>immediately and never, ever have spoken to him again in his lifetime,
>even when he got cancer.
I'm sure you are aware that a big consideration in using any kind of
intelligence info is that whether and how you use it may reveal that you
have a source and something about what it might be. Presumably, your
dad protected his sources well enough.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
My dad did what I would do: if I don't trust my kid enough to not worry
about where he's going, I don't give him the car keys.
Wayne Throop
:: figured out where dad hid the GPS devices - or how dad "knew" #2 son
:: borrowed truck to go over to a friend's house and somehow got there
:: via a high school football game 45 miles away... <grin>
: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
: If my dad ever did that kind of tracking to me, I would have left home
: immediately and never, ever have spoken to him again in his lifetime,
: even when he got cancer.
GPS tracking your own car when you lend it doesn't seem horribly
outrageous to me. Now, sound and motion detector driven full audio
and video coverage of the interior of the car, either logged to local
storage or accessable realtime via remote wideband cellular ... ouch.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw