Guest
we should put the NSA to work going after the do not call list violators.
Marl
we should put the NSA to work going after the do not call list violators.
Marl
P
Pimpom
Guest
<meow2222@care2.com> wrote in message
news:5ef252e5-46bb-40b2-b3f1-f371451ec151@googlegroups.com...
I hear that President Obama, in a frantic effort to conserve
electrons, will soon inroduce a bill to limit the use of
cellphones to three 15-second calls per phone per day. Good luck,
USans.
news:5ef252e5-46bb-40b2-b3f1-f371451ec151@googlegroups.com...
I hear that President Obama, in a frantic effort to conserve
electrons, will soon inroduce a bill to limit the use of
cellphones to three 15-second calls per phone per day. Good luck,
USans.
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 01:10:27 +0530, "Pimpom" <pimpom@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
And he flies himself, and his wife, to Hawaii on separate planes, on
the same day.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
And he flies himself, and his wife, to Hawaii on separate planes, on
the same day.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Guest
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 6:48:11 PM UTC-7, k...@zzz.com wrote:
Thank God Jeb Bush is our next President.
Four More Beers.
Thank God Jeb Bush is our next President.
Four More Beers.
Guest
On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 12:52:43 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
Well, would you want to spend half a day with her, cooped up in a tiny
plane like that?
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
Well, would you want to spend half a day with her, cooped up in a tiny
plane like that?
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 19:38:31 -0400, krw@zzz.com wrote:
It's a 747, but that's still too small.
Oh, the Air Force is going to buy a new fleet of Air Force One planes,
for way over $3B. The new Marine Corps One presidential helicopters
will cost over $2B. That doesn't include greens fees.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
It's a 747, but that's still too small.
Oh, the Air Force is going to buy a new fleet of Air Force One planes,
for way over $3B. The new Marine Corps One presidential helicopters
will cost over $2B. That doesn't include greens fees.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Guest
On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:14:16 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
Exactly.
That's just for the fuel for four years.
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
Exactly.
That's just for the fuel for four years.
A
Adrian Tuddenham
Guest
bill ashford <billa!x@top.com> wrote:
By the beginning of this week, the situation was becoming impossible,
with silent calls interrupting my work several times a day and scams of
every sort during the evenings. I daren't risk losing any of my genuine
'phone calls by relying on an answering machine (bad for business), so I
decided to report every single unwanted call as soon as possible after
it happened.
In the U.K., reporting starts with the Information Commissioner's Office
website, which then sorts out which type of nuisance call needs to be
directed to which authority (there are loads of different categories).
I went through this procedure for three days, giving the same
information time after time.
Suddenly all the calls have stopped - every single one of them. I have
had two wonderful spam-free days.. I suppose it could be coincidence,
but that is stretching things a bit far.
Could someone else in the U.K. try the same thing and let us know if it
works for them?
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
By the beginning of this week, the situation was becoming impossible,
with silent calls interrupting my work several times a day and scams of
every sort during the evenings. I daren't risk losing any of my genuine
'phone calls by relying on an answering machine (bad for business), so I
decided to report every single unwanted call as soon as possible after
it happened.
In the U.K., reporting starts with the Information Commissioner's Office
website, which then sorts out which type of nuisance call needs to be
directed to which authority (there are loads of different categories).
I went through this procedure for three days, giving the same
information time after time.
Suddenly all the calls have stopped - every single one of them. I have
had two wonderful spam-free days.. I suppose it could be coincidence,
but that is stretching things a bit far.
Could someone else in the U.K. try the same thing and let us know if it
works for them?
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Guest
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 20:26:16 -0700 (PDT), rev.11d.meow@gmail.com wrote:
You're wrong, as lefties always are.
>Four More Beers.
No thanks. Don't drink. ...your lefty KoolAid, either.
You're wrong, as lefties always are.
>Four More Beers.
No thanks. Don't drink. ...your lefty KoolAid, either.
J
Jim Thompson
Guest
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 08:12:53 -0400, bill ashford <billa!x@top.com>
wrote:
I originally had JF Teck "Caller ID With Ring Controller". That
device mutes the first ring while it reads the caller-ID, then allows
or mutes any further rings if the offending number is found in memory.
It has also has white-listing capability, which I never used.
The problem is that muting that first ring prevents the house phones
from reading the caller-ID themselves.
You may remember a thread of mine from several years ago where I added
my own box such that ring voltage was sent to the phones, but the
phones had their ringers turned-off, thus "quietly" reading the
caller-ID, my box then sent a ring signal on a separate pair to a
local ringer.
Now I'm VOIP with Ooma, who subscribe to the Nomorobo listing, plus I
personally block all 800 numbers... the silence is golden ;-)
For my cell phone I add spammers to my contact list, Zpam-1, etc., but
set them to no-ring. It's rare that a spammer waits 9 rings to
intrude on my voicemail >:-}
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice
480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
wrote:
I originally had JF Teck "Caller ID With Ring Controller". That
device mutes the first ring while it reads the caller-ID, then allows
or mutes any further rings if the offending number is found in memory.
It has also has white-listing capability, which I never used.
The problem is that muting that first ring prevents the house phones
from reading the caller-ID themselves.
You may remember a thread of mine from several years ago where I added
my own box such that ring voltage was sent to the phones, but the
phones had their ringers turned-off, thus "quietly" reading the
caller-ID, my box then sent a ring signal on a separate pair to a
local ringer.
Now I'm VOIP with Ooma, who subscribe to the Nomorobo listing, plus I
personally block all 800 numbers... the silence is golden ;-)
For my cell phone I add spammers to my contact list, Zpam-1, etc., but
set them to no-ring. It's rare that a spammer waits 9 rings to
intrude on my voicemail >:-}
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice
480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat || E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 17/04/2015 2:18 AM, Clocky wrote:
Added sci.electronics.design
"Danev said his company was in talks with several car manufacturers to
install a chip that can tell how far the key is from the car, thereby
defeating the power-amplifier trick."
We don't have details, but I'm a little sceptical that this would be the
solution it appears to be. While it's easy enough to send out a signal
and measure the response time, thus determining the distance, it's not
so easy to ensure that the responding device is the key fob.
Normally, the fob proves its identity by sending a code to the car. As
is apparent, this doesn't prevent the signal from being relayed. To
ensure that there's no relay, it would be necessary to measure the
response time of the entire code. The problem here is that it's not know
to any degree of accuracy what that should be - there's some variation
in the frequency used by the fob.
Measuring the time to the first edge of the response is no good - it may
be inserted by the relay device, with only subsequent edges being
relayed from the fob.
Perhaps the whole keyless entry concept is fundamentally flawed.
Sylvia.
Added sci.electronics.design
"Danev said his company was in talks with several car manufacturers to
install a chip that can tell how far the key is from the car, thereby
defeating the power-amplifier trick."
We don't have details, but I'm a little sceptical that this would be the
solution it appears to be. While it's easy enough to send out a signal
and measure the response time, thus determining the distance, it's not
so easy to ensure that the responding device is the key fob.
Normally, the fob proves its identity by sending a code to the car. As
is apparent, this doesn't prevent the signal from being relayed. To
ensure that there's no relay, it would be necessary to measure the
response time of the entire code. The problem here is that it's not know
to any degree of accuracy what that should be - there's some variation
in the frequency used by the fob.
Measuring the time to the first edge of the response is no good - it may
be inserted by the relay device, with only subsequent edges being
relayed from the fob.
Perhaps the whole keyless entry concept is fundamentally flawed.
Sylvia.
P
Phil Hobbs
Guest
Move to a better neighbourhood.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
P
Phil Hobbs
Guest
On 4/17/2015 12:36 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
The whole keyless entry thing is a solution looking for a problem, with
all sorts of unforeseen consequences. It's been a simple matter for
decades to build keys that make it very hard to pick a lock.
Most of us have had a flat battery more times than we've had our car
stolen, by a lot. Keyless systems make that very inconvenient indeed.
And anybody with any computer security nous whatsoever will tell you
that if somebody has physical access to your computer, all your IT
security is useless. Cars are the same way.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
The whole keyless entry thing is a solution looking for a problem, with
all sorts of unforeseen consequences. It's been a simple matter for
decades to build keys that make it very hard to pick a lock.
Most of us have had a flat battery more times than we've had our car
stolen, by a lot. Keyless systems make that very inconvenient indeed.
And anybody with any computer security nous whatsoever will tell you
that if somebody has physical access to your computer, all your IT
security is useless. Cars are the same way.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
S
sms
Guest
On 4/17/2015 12:49 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Cities should distribute these amplifiers. Thieves will just break a
window if they can't open the door. These devices will prevent a lot of
broken windows.
Cities should distribute these amplifiers. Thieves will just break a
window if they can't open the door. These devices will prevent a lot of
broken windows.
F
F Murtz
Guest
Sylvia Else wrote:
Or is it passive and just get identified by the car like my ignition key?
Or is it passive and just get identified by the car like my ignition key?
D
Don Y
Guest
On 4/17/2015 12:49 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Then the lock isn't "picked" but, rather, MANGLED by the thief. Auto locks
(doors, windows, etc.) are notoriously poor defenses.
[I had to replace the DOOR lock assembly on one of our vehicles a few months
back. Thankfully, they decided not to pop the column, as well.]
Unlike owners, thieves usually don't care too much about the cosmetic
damage they do to a vehicle that they are stealing.
Most keyless systems have mechanical backups for exactly that reason.
A flat battery may prevent you from *immediately* starting your vehicle
(once you've gained entry), but that can be remedied once you *have*
access.
Locks keep honest people honest. That's about it. I've known people
who've had their cars "towed" away by thiefs ("Hey! Look! That guy's
car is being towed away!" *not* "OMG! Someone is stealing that car!").
ATM machines similarly "burglarized" by forceful removal, etc. Steering
column locks ("The Club") are bypassed by simply cutting a slot in the
steering wheel.
A cousin had the door frame ripped out of her home by thieves as an expedient
to gaining access to her furs and jewelry.
A neighbor had his vehicle stolen *twice* from his driveway.
Many years ago, a thief smashed a window in my car and stole a winter
jacket (WTF?) leaving me to drive home late at night without a jacket
and an "open window".
Then the lock isn't "picked" but, rather, MANGLED by the thief. Auto locks
(doors, windows, etc.) are notoriously poor defenses.
[I had to replace the DOOR lock assembly on one of our vehicles a few months
back. Thankfully, they decided not to pop the column, as well.]
Unlike owners, thieves usually don't care too much about the cosmetic
damage they do to a vehicle that they are stealing.
Most keyless systems have mechanical backups for exactly that reason.
A flat battery may prevent you from *immediately* starting your vehicle
(once you've gained entry), but that can be remedied once you *have*
access.
Locks keep honest people honest. That's about it. I've known people
who've had their cars "towed" away by thiefs ("Hey! Look! That guy's
car is being towed away!" *not* "OMG! Someone is stealing that car!").
ATM machines similarly "burglarized" by forceful removal, etc. Steering
column locks ("The Club") are bypassed by simply cutting a slot in the
steering wheel.
A cousin had the door frame ripped out of her home by thieves as an expedient
to gaining access to her furs and jewelry.
A neighbor had his vehicle stolen *twice* from his driveway.
Many years ago, a thief smashed a window in my car and stole a winter
jacket (WTF?) leaving me to drive home late at night without a jacket
and an "open window".
S
Sylvia Else
Guest
On 17/04/2015 6:38 PM, F Murtz wrote:
It's not really passive. There is still a code transmitted.
Sylvia.
It's not really passive. There is still a code transmitted.
Sylvia.
D
Don Y
Guest
On 4/17/2015 2:43 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Move to a better neighbourhood.
Where you live seems to have little bearing on the matter.
Guy from one of the wealthiest, "upscale" households in town recounted
how his floor safe was stolen from his home. The thief was caught
with *it* (still "locked") in a wheelbarrow trying to get it out through
the "back lots" to avoid the guards at the gated entry!
> Move to a better neighbourhood.
Where you live seems to have little bearing on the matter.
Guy from one of the wealthiest, "upscale" households in town recounted
how his floor safe was stolen from his home. The thief was caught
with *it* (still "locked") in a wheelbarrow trying to get it out through
the "back lots" to avoid the guards at the gated entry!
T
toby ponsenby
Guest
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:37:50 +1000, Sylvia Else did Blather:
You're simply full of it tonight...
--
Toby
You're simply full of it tonight...
--
Toby
C
Chris Jones
Guest
On 17/04/2015 14:36, Sylvia Else wrote:
I missed the beginning of this thread wherever it is. Are you talking
about this?
https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/332.pdf
I have a theory that several times in history, some bright engineer at a
car company has come up with a much more secure immobilizer that will
greatly reduce car theft. That engineer is led away to a meeting with
HR, and offered a much higher paid job in the bumper polishing
department, and the secure immobilizer is quietly stashed away in the
cupboard with all the others.
Seriously, many people who have brand A car stolen will go right back to
the dealer with the insurance money, and buy exactly the same model of
car from brand A again. They don't have time to go through the hassle of
choosing a model of car again, just because of what some stranger did.
Every time that an immobilizer fails to do its job, very probably the
same car maker makes a fresh sale.
I suspect that a truly effective immobilizer would have a significant
negative impact on the profitability of a car manufacturer. What
percentage of new car purchases are to replace a stolen, recent model
car? Amongst people I know it is a high percentage (maybe 2 in 5, both
replacements were the same model that was stolen).
To the small extent that customers care about insurance costs due to the
risk of theft when choosing a car, the insurance ratings are probably
based on assessments by some "independent" group (Thatcham etc.) which
may well be box-ticking excercises where they get extra points for
securing against one method of entry whereas the other (more inventive)
ones are not even looked at because they didn't know it was possible.
I would really not trust any immobilizer that comes with the car - as
the incentives are all wrong. The only thing that would fix this
incentive would be for the car manufacturer to be automatically liable
for the vehicle replacement cost in the event that the keys are still in
your posession. I think that would rapidly improve immobilizers, and
they probably already have a cupboard full of good designs that they
have been suppressing.
I missed the beginning of this thread wherever it is. Are you talking
about this?
https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/332.pdf
I have a theory that several times in history, some bright engineer at a
car company has come up with a much more secure immobilizer that will
greatly reduce car theft. That engineer is led away to a meeting with
HR, and offered a much higher paid job in the bumper polishing
department, and the secure immobilizer is quietly stashed away in the
cupboard with all the others.
Seriously, many people who have brand A car stolen will go right back to
the dealer with the insurance money, and buy exactly the same model of
car from brand A again. They don't have time to go through the hassle of
choosing a model of car again, just because of what some stranger did.
Every time that an immobilizer fails to do its job, very probably the
same car maker makes a fresh sale.
I suspect that a truly effective immobilizer would have a significant
negative impact on the profitability of a car manufacturer. What
percentage of new car purchases are to replace a stolen, recent model
car? Amongst people I know it is a high percentage (maybe 2 in 5, both
replacements were the same model that was stolen).
To the small extent that customers care about insurance costs due to the
risk of theft when choosing a car, the insurance ratings are probably
based on assessments by some "independent" group (Thatcham etc.) which
may well be box-ticking excercises where they get extra points for
securing against one method of entry whereas the other (more inventive)
ones are not even looked at because they didn't know it was possible.
I would really not trust any immobilizer that comes with the car - as
the incentives are all wrong. The only thing that would fix this
incentive would be for the car manufacturer to be automatically liable
for the vehicle replacement cost in the event that the keys are still in
your posession. I think that would rapidly improve immobilizers, and
they probably already have a cupboard full of good designs that they
have been suppressing.