Google sponsored links
If police disable a single vehicle, it's impacting only the guilty party, which is what wfin2004 and I illustrated for you all along.
And they are doing it before anyone has been killed - my point, which you seem determined to ignore. Your illustration was more along the lines of this is unworkable because it infringes on the liberties of the population of the northern hemisphere and either causes death or my daughter to have brain damage.
wfin2004's illustration (and that's really stretching it) was that this is unworkable because it will cost $500 a pop. Bear in mind that an entry level Dell PC runs $300 and has 256MB of RAM and an 80GB hard drive. I have to wonder if wfin2004 knows anything about software engineering, RTOS, and CMOS specified for automotive use.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
HoustonB, wow! You are going in circles. Under your latest-generation proposal the person having his car disabled by police would have already been observed committing a crime. This is exactly what has been illustrated for you multiple times over the course of several pages in this thread. Several posters have tried to help you.
first you support a general disablement of cars in a 100-yard circle with drivers who fail to stop to be shot by police...including "Natural Selection"...those are your words. your next idea is for "certain" vehicles to receive an "exception" via methodology you can't explain. you swap your latest notion to that of a pinpoint-style device to disable cars 500 yards away in a 20-25 degree cone of accuracy.
Casual observers of this thread are shaking their head in disbelief over the bipolar-style logic you're displaying. You're absolutely entitled to your notions, but please have the decency to stay on point without flip-flopping all over the place.
HoustonB, wow! You are going in circles. Under your latest-generation proposal the person having his car disabled by police would have already been observed committing a crime. This is exactly what has been illustrated for you multiple times over the course of several pages in this thread. Several posters have tried to help you.
first you support a general disablement of cars in a 100-yard circle with drivers who fail to stop to be shot by police...including "Natural Selection"...those are your words. your next idea is for "certain" vehicles to receive an "exception" via methodology you can't explain. lastly, you swap your notion to a pinpoint-style device to disable cars 500 yards away in a 20-25 degree cone of accuracy.
Casual observers of this thread are shaking their head in disbelief over the bipolar-style logic you're displaying. You're absolutely entitled to your notions, but please have the decency to stay on point without flip-flopping all over the place.The more astute observers are probably wondering why I continue to reply to your obvious intransigence. You say "going in circles" I say refining an idea.
My initial idea (100m all private vehicles) was too broad a brush, hence the refinement to a single vehicle.
"exception via methodology you can't explain" - I will try to keep it simple for you - vehicles that should not be affected have engine management chips that ignore the radio signal.
"flip-flopping all over the place" - I have made a single suggestion that has not changed; a radio activated (not EMP) device to negate the need for high speed pursuit by law enforcement.
And contrary to your quote above, nowhere did I use the word disable, and I made it clear in my initial post the goal was "loss of power without loss of brakes or power steering".
Sadly, I have to conclude that your arguments are on a par with wfin2004 - lacking in all regards.
HoustonB, people have a hard enough ensuring their PC's operate properly in the comfort of their homes and you have this idea that police are going to disable individual moving vehicles from over a quarter-mile away without capturing innocent bystanders in the dragnet?
At the beginning of the thread you were a proponent of police officers using deadly force in a bizarre form of justice. Your are the author of a "Natural Selection" (your words) on cars that didn't stop for this imaginary radio-controlled device. An innocent person who hasn't kept their old clunker up-to-date with the newest "radio-control device laws" would catch a bullet (in your world) if they accidentally miss a traffic signal and failed to stop for an officer.
Please stop this outrageous posting. You've already promoted law enforcement shooting people for traffic infractions about which they may or may not even be aware. The schemes you advocate are extremely violent and would never be supported in a free country based on democratic principles.
HoustonB's post#3 saved for posterity
The whole concept of a police car chase is something that has always angered me. More so when innocent people are injured. When the result is death (of innocent bystanders), words fail me. High speed chasing, powerful cars, sirens and lights are all about keeping macho cops happy.
A simple and incredibly cheap technology solution would allow a cop on foot, bicycle or car to apprehend any motorist. The cop presses a button and all private motor vehicles within 100 meters lose engine power for a few minutes (but not brakes or power steering).
Obviously people with limited intellect will argue – what happens if people get the device, or it would be easy to circumvent. Sure, do me a favor get dressed in a cop's uniform and go for a walk in your local police station. ANY vehicle that has had the device compromised and fails to stop, would be open-season for deadly force – lets call it natural selection.
Should we also handcuff all airline passengers to prevent terrorist attack?
Or make them stand in security lines?
gcl8a- You've got a humorous PM! :D
wfin2004's illustration (and that's really stretching it) was that this is unworkable because it will cost $500 a pop. Bear in mind that an entry level Dell PC runs $300 and has 256MB of RAM and an 80GB hard drive. I have to wonder if wfin2004 knows anything about software engineering, RTOS, and CMOS specified for automotive use.
You know HoustonBiatch, Now you have mildly irritated me with your self righteous attitude. I was only guessing as to the cost of each unit and everyone knew that except you. I had a device installed on my Expedition when purchased for use as a tracking device. Commonly known as lo jack. I was comparing the cost of this to the cost of each device needed for your juvenile hair brain now pwned idea. If you must take jabs at my profession, please understand that not all human beings on this planet are the smart ***** that you are. I am a Master Plumber w/ a degree in public relations and certified by the State of Florida to be an instructor of Back flow Prevention. Not quite up to your level of intelligence I am sure. But a noble one nonetheless. Just admit it, HoustonBiatch, you are through with this thread as you are now in the category of PWNED !
You know HoustonBiatch, Now you have mildly irritated me with your self righteous attitude. I was only guessing as to the cost of each unit and everyone knew that except you. I had a device installed on my Expedition when purchased for use as a tracking device. Commonly known as lo jack. I was comparing the cost of this to the cost of each device needed for your juvenile hair brain now pwned idea. If you must take jabs at my profession, please understand that not all human beings on this planet are the smart ***** that you are. I am a Master Plumber w/ a degree in public relations and certified by the State of Florida to be an instructor of Back flow Prevention. Not quite up to your level of intelligence I am sure. But a noble one nonetheless. Just admit it, HoustonBiatch, you are through with this thread as you are now in the category of PWNED !
My jibe about "limited intellect" was aimed at no one in particular. To put it back into it's original context consider the following allegory (the meaning lies outside the narrative):
People with limited intellect will no doubt argue - in simpleton terms.
People with a PhD in logic will no doubt argue - with great sophistication.
My post was made before you joined the thread - and therefore could not have been directed specifically at you without there being either a direct or indirect reference to you. None exists.
Your replies to me on the other hand specifically and directly state that I am "now the one with limited intellect and looking silly". Your dismissive and derisory attitude was obvious from the start. Hence my reluctance to reply to you.
At one point I made mention of my wonder at the basis for your "calculations" and your knowledge of software engineering, real time operating systems (RTOS) and CMOS specified for automotive use. Somehow you see this as a jibe at your profession. You are the one choosing how to interpret my post - if you choose to take it as a personal attack then you merely continue to reinforce your pejorative style.
I am glad that you are big enough to admit that your $500 was a guess and not actually a calculation. For your information, $10 or less would probably be more accurate for mass produced electronics and that includes a sizable profit margin, but not installation costs that ought to take a trained technician about 10 minutes.
Also here are example prices of existing (science fiction / imaginary) non mass produced items similar to those I have suggested (in this case for BMW's):
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQsassZsapporo10
HoustonB, people have a hard enough ensuring their PC's operate properly in the comfort of their homes and you have this idea that police are going to disable individual moving vehicles from over a quarter-mile away without capturing innocent bystanders in the dragnet?
Do you trust law enforcement to use weapons reliably, but you do not trust them to use something equivalent to a speed gun?
"innocent bystanders... dragnet" you are equating a radio device with a dirty bomb!
this imaginary radio-controlled device.
Do you know of any ideas that are not imaginary?
Please stop this outrageous posting.
I made one tongue-in-cheek reference as part of my initial post to "open season and natural selection", do try to get over it.
Actually it is obvious that you are merely trying to argue for the sake of arguing - either that, or you are obtuse. Have you considered applying for work with the Bush Administration?
HoustonB, the statements you've made illustrate your utter contempt for law enforcement. You're the one who is on the record of stating:
"...High speed chasing, powerful cars, sirens and lights are all about keeping macho cops happy..."
You're going to flip-flop yet again and say you were JOKING about police shooting at people over traffic incidents? What is your latest position? That way I can check the thread before lunch to see how your viewpoint changes again. The whole shooting-at-presumed-innocent-people genre of humor apparently never gets the proper credit it is due. You're such a funny comedian! Shooting at traffic violaters! Ha-ha-ha! LOL!
"...I made one tongue-in-cheek reference as part of my initial post to 'open season and natural selection'..."
You have a veneer of allegedly being "for the people" when in actuality it appears you feel superior to everyday folks and need to make decisions for them for their own good. Heck, you even accused one fellow BikeForums poster of having only two neurons that might be running a bit hot. What is up with that? It's certainly not the kind of behavior one would associate with a kindhearted person watching for our well-being.
HoustonB, the statements you've made illustrate your utter contempt for law enforcement.
You're going to flip-flop yet again and say you were JOKING about police shooting at people over traffic incidents? What is your latest position? That way I can check the thread before lunch to see how your viewpoint changes again. The whole shooting-at-presumed-innocent-people genre of humor apparently never gets the proper credit it is due. You're such a funny comedian! Shooting at traffic violaters! Ha-ha-ha! LOL!
You have a veneer of allegedly being "for the people" when in actuality it appears you feel superior to everyday folks and need to make decisions for them for their own good. Heck, you even accused one fellow BikeForums poster of having only two neurons that might be running a bit hot. What is up with that? It's certainly not the kind of behavior one would associate with a kindhearted person watching for our well-being.
It's really just a tactic for you : claim I am doing something I am not (in this case flip-flop), ignore my correction of your poor reading comprehension (I call it refinement) then hope that repetition of your falsehood (flip-flop with an underscored again) will lend credibility to your nonsense. You have yet to answer a single question I have posed and instead constantly look for other things you do not like. Enjoy shooting the breeze.
HoustonB, if you've allegedly refined your position to not have "macho" police officers shoot motorists who may not realize they're violating a radio-remote-control vehicle disablement law, you're making progress. Yes, I will continue to pleasantly shoot the breeze with fellow BikeForums members...because it's infinitely gentler than shooting people as you clearly advocated in the third post of this thread. Don't worry, you're on the record with all your statements.
The more astute observers are probably wondering why I continue to reply to your obvious intransigence. ...
No. Your statement pretty close to being accurate, but you don't quite have it right yet.
No. Your statement pretty close to being accurate, but you don't quite have it right yet.
Please clarify.
Please clarify.
I will clarify. You have an attitude on these forums that highly suggest you are far superior to other members of the BF. You might think this is a good thing, But when in reality you are only making yourself look like a fool. I would have been happy to have a nice discussion with you about your "idea", but I think along in the first few posts you pretty much blew it with the "limited intellect" statement even though you directed it at no one in particular. But everyone who read the post took it as dig against them because you refer to "us" as of limited intelligence. Your arrogance has overshadowed any knowledge you have shown in this thread. We have tried to show different examples of how this would not work and you have pretty much just outright let your arrogance and crappy attitude run your posts as well as your mouth. Statements like this, "I have to wonder if wfin2004 knows anything about software engineering, RTOS, and CMOS specified for automotive use", make more enemies than friends. Try not to be so high and mighty next time and you might win friends on these forums.
wfin2004
My clarification:
replace: reply to your
with: display
There is a related SCOTUS ruling today:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf
With video:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott_v_harris.rmvb (Real Player)
Al
There is a closely related SCOTUS ruling today:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf
With video:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott_v_harris.rmvb
Al
Very Interesting read.
Very Interesting read.
Did you read the whole thing in 4min, wow ;) Or perhaps you saw it before.
(just giving you a hard time, I havent' read it all, but also consider it interesting as it relates to this thread)
Al
Did you read the whole thing in 4min, wow ;) Or perhaps you saw it before.
(just giving you a hard time, I havent' read it all, but also consider it interesting as it relates to this thread)
Al
Read a lot of it and got the meat of it. Like I said, very interesting read. One part way down to the bottom was about a Georgia police officer chasing some dude and using the "pit" on him. I think that one was on Cops the other night!:D
......ignore my correction of your poor reading comprehension (I call it refinement)......
Hmpf. I call it backpedalling.
Back to the topic of the wisdom of high speed chases....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNd0_ctaOSk&mode=related&search=
True or not, that video underscores the stupidity of taking chases to an extreme. Let the guy go, and deal with it later.
/\/\ Wow, that was truly wild chase footage. Thankfully the majority don't occur in that manner. The technology HoustonB promotes would have killed somebody in that situation when their car died while attempting to pull safely to the shoulder.
Sadly, many chases DO go like that one :( I was in a pub the other day, and the tv was tuned to some wacked out show which was nothing but police chase after police chase (we dont have tv, so I had not seen this before ...). What got me was that there was enough footage like that to make a multiseason tv series. It was kinda depressing.
Granted, most people when pulled over just pull over, but the chases, when we have multiple cruisers going after one car, really bother me. Is it worth it? (If depjones could pipe in with some thoughts, I would appreciate it)
Sadly, many chases DO go like that one :( I was in a pub the other day, and the tv was tuned to some wacked out show which was nothing but police chase after police chase (we dont have tv, so I had not seen this before ...). What got me was that there was enough footage like that to make a multiseason tv series. It was kinda depressing.
Granted, most people when pulled over just pull over, but the chases, when we have multiple cruisers going after one car, really bother me. Is it worth it? (If depjones could pipe in with some thoughts, I would appreciate it)
Is it worth it is a good question. If you listen to the details of each chase, it is most likely a stolen vehicle. A few are people that have enough warrants to go directly to jail without passing "Go", and some just don't want the ticket.
An interesting take on the question might be finding a way to compare the thoughts of people about the police more aggressively investigating car thieves, and compare it separately to the thoughts of the same people about high speed chases. Don't let the people know that their answers will be compared, ask the questions at separate times.
I wouldn't place any blame at the feet of the cops for this at all. The girls are responsible for their own actions.
Of course they are, but so are the police. Using force ( a police chase) on the "girls" was not justified. As much as we know about the story, the danger to society started when the police began to chase them.
The police-bashing on this thread has become tiresome. Posters blame the police for the fatality and then wish to saddle these same officers with greater safety responsibilities by wishing to have them disable moving vehicles in traffic...which would be a safety nightmare for everyone. We all know police-bashers would come out swinging even harder the next time.
Of course they are, but so are the police. Using force ( a police chase) on the "girls" was not justified. As much as we know about the story, the danger to society started when the police began to chase them.
BS, the danger started when the girls broke the law and it increased when THEY chose to run. They likely would have kept running even if the police did not chase.
BS, the danger started when the girls broke the law and it increased when THEY chose to run. They likely would have kept running even if the police did not chase.
I hear stories over and over again of police who have been called off chases and then what happens 2 minutes later? Thugs are involved in some kind of accident down the road with no police anywhere around.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.