BIG BROTHER IS COMING!! (was: teen driver alert)

Richard Ness wrote:

> He didn't bring to your attention that you are a spammer.
>
> Another word of advice to take heed of:
> Be very careful when spamming. Complaints will get you shut
> down VERY quickly

How strange. None of GPSMike's posts appear here at all...

8-)

> "GPSMike" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
>>Why do you say that? I don't take any offense to what he stated on my
>>product or it's features. He did present it in a rather interesting
>>manner, and he brought up a rather valuable concern about the satellite
>>imagery and how it's used. If anything his comments assisted me.
>>Anyone who helps me, is indeed a friend
>>
>
>
>

> Now, your aerial photos aren't nearly as gimmicky as that Keyhole
> thingee that Google sells (http://keyhole.com/). The whole flying
> through the air and zooming in and out effects are straight out of
> Hollywood. Hey - maybe you could license the Keyhole engine for your
> vehicle tracking service!


Or tie into the free http://learn.arc.nasa.gov/worldwind/

> Now, your aerial photos aren't nearly as gimmicky as that Keyhole
> thingee that Google sells (http://keyhole.com/). The whole flying
> through the air and zooming in and out effects are straight out of
> Hollywood. Hey - maybe you could license the Keyhole engine for your
> vehicle tracking service!


Or tie into the free http://learn.arc.nasa.gov/worldwind/

"GPSMike" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> LoJack is antiquated technology. The biggest problem with LoJack is
> that the municipality you live in has to carry the tracking system in
> their squad cars. Some cities don't want to add that to their police
> fleet. Secondly, you're at the mercy of them having someone available
> to actively search for your car. If they're short on officers (which
> many times they are) you're stuck there waiting for them to get around
> to it.
> Third, the Lojack system is essentially a triangulation device ONLY
> used for theft recovery. It does not offer remote disabling or start.
> Speed reporting, and active tracking.

True, your system, like Onstar are independant of police equipment.

> The only advantage LoJack has is
> the marketing. I compare it to VHS vs. Beta or Minidisc vs. CD.

I don't know if VHS vs. Beta analogy is valid. Both those technologies offer
the same features and do the same job. Just one quality is better than
another

Your system, and similar GPS based systems offer and more features, so the
MD vs CD analogy is a bit better, except MDs have compressed audio, so there
is slightly lower quality in MD, even if it offers more features.


> With the vehiclelocate system all you do is call the police, report the
> car stolen and tell them precisely where it's at. They get to recover
> the car, and nab the car theif. They have a bit more of an incentive
> if they can get a conviction out of it as wel. Also, you wouldn't have
> to have a "live" laptop in your car to track the stolen one. Would you
> really want to put yourself in the way of a car theif? Seriously think
> about that one.

So than what value would the satellite photo be?

"Yes officer, the car is next to that building at the corner of the roads
where the pavement turns from concrete to asphalt" That's what makes it a
bit of a gimmick.

All you'd have to say is "It's located at this address, this is the make,
model, color,and plate number."

"GPSMike" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> LoJack is antiquated technology. The biggest problem with LoJack is
> that the municipality you live in has to carry the tracking system in
> their squad cars. Some cities don't want to add that to their police
> fleet. Secondly, you're at the mercy of them having someone available
> to actively search for your car. If they're short on officers (which
> many times they are) you're stuck there waiting for them to get around
> to it.
> Third, the Lojack system is essentially a triangulation device ONLY
> used for theft recovery. It does not offer remote disabling or start.
> Speed reporting, and active tracking.

True, your system, like Onstar are independant of police equipment.

> The only advantage LoJack has is
> the marketing. I compare it to VHS vs. Beta or Minidisc vs. CD.

I don't know if VHS vs. Beta analogy is valid. Both those technologies offer
the same features and do the same job. Just one quality is better than
another

Your system, and similar GPS based systems offer and more features, so the
MD vs CD analogy is a bit better, except MDs have compressed audio, so there
is slightly lower quality in MD, even if it offers more features.


> With the vehiclelocate system all you do is call the police, report the
> car stolen and tell them precisely where it's at. They get to recover
> the car, and nab the car theif. They have a bit more of an incentive
> if they can get a conviction out of it as wel. Also, you wouldn't have
> to have a "live" laptop in your car to track the stolen one. Would you
> really want to put yourself in the way of a car theif? Seriously think
> about that one.

So than what value would the satellite photo be?

"Yes officer, the car is next to that building at the corner of the roads
where the pavement turns from concrete to asphalt" That's what makes it a
bit of a gimmick.

All you'd have to say is "It's located at this address, this is the make,
model, color,and plate number."

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2004 19:03:25 -0800, "GPSMike" >
> wrote:
>
> >LoJack is antiquated technology.
>
> Perhaps, but at least it has a chance of working in areas like the
> Carizzo Plain, which have no cellular phone service.

Actually, with 98% coverage of N. American municipalities, and how weak
of a signal that the antennae needs to report it's location I'm pretty
confident that the Carizzo Plain (That's CA right?)
>
> I think of LoJack as kind of a backup system.
>
> >Secondly, you're at the mercy of them having someone available
> >to actively search for your car. If they're short on officers (which
> >many times they are) you're stuck there waiting for them to get
around
> >to it.
>
> That's is also a drawback of your system, is it not? Unless you plan
> to personally apprehend the thieves and recover your car, you are
> dependent upon the police to "get around to it."

Not necessarily. Look at it from both scenarios:
Lojack: "hello officer, my car's been stolen, I have Lo-Jack"
VehicleLocate.net: "Hello Officer my car has been stolen, and it's at
1245 Harrison avenue"
With the LoJack system, they have to devote resources to the actual
searching (once of course they can devote someone to spend that time to
look) With the VehicleLocate.net system the searching aspect is
eliminated altogether. So the time constraints are reduced, therefore
the a nearby police officer can track the car and in most cases nab the
theif in the process.

>
> >Would you
> >really want to put yourself in the way of a car theif? Seriously
think
> >about that one.
>
> Indeed.
>
> But anyway, I wasn't attempting to debate the pros and cons of
LoJack.
> I merely pointed out that vehicle tracking and security devices don't
> necessarily result in any savings on insurance premiums. Back in
1991,
> when I had an alarm system installed in my 1991 Mustang LX 5.0, State
> Farm did give me a discount because it had the "passive arming"
> feature, but they recently stopped doing that, probably because alarm
> systems are now roundly ignored by everybody and no longer serve as a
> deterrent to thieves.
>
You're right, alarm systems in general are useless. They go off and
surrounding people (potential witnesses) ignore the noise and the theif
succeeds in snagging the car. With the system I'm pushing, there's no
alarm that goes off, there's no bells or whistles or sirens. It simply
gives you the ability to disable the car when you go to bed, so even
hotwiring it is useless. Then if they want the car bad enough they
just tow it. The system is configurable enough to send reports to your
e-mail or pager and let you control it from your desktop or phone etc.
All things that LoJack specifically does not do.

> BTW, if you're determined to pursue the anti-theft angle, why don't
> you add an input to your control unit that will trigger a report
> whenever the vehicle's alarm system is set off, like LoJack Early
> Warning does? Given what you already have, it would be trivial to
have
> the system send the owner a page or an email telling them their car
> has been tampered with (or that their alarm has false-triggered again
> and they need to come over and shut it off

Mainly because alarms, as stated earlier, are useless. The only way to
truly prevent your car from being stolen is lengthen the time it takes
to steal your car. The longer it takes to steal it, the less likely it
will get stolen.

>
> Personally, I'd rather have useful features like this than gimmicky
> eye-candy.
>
> --
> Sloth Kills!
> http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

Now, to address the analogies between Beta and VHS, my analogy had more
to do with marketing. Beta was a better technology and was used by all
the news television stations for years and years. Yet VHS received the
mass marketing to the general public. Much like LoJack. They got the
marketing power to the point that LoJack is a household name. Same
thing with MD vs. CD. Although I think the CD had more to do with the
marketing that RCA wanted to tie in the 7" disc back to the days of the
first records that also were 7". Even though MD could hold more
information (albeit at a lower quality) did not have the skipping
issues that CD's had and would last longer than say a CD. Now all that
is moot due to digital storage etc. But I hope I've made my point. Is
that all the marketing in the world telling you that it's a better (or
the only) option out there, doesn't make it so.

I'm enjoying this exchange. Noone is being childish and I'm learning
more about the perception of the product. I hope to keep this dialouge
going farther.

Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2004 19:03:25 -0800, "GPSMike" >
> wrote:
>
> >LoJack is antiquated technology.
>
> Perhaps, but at least it has a chance of working in areas like the
> Carizzo Plain, which have no cellular phone service.

Actually, with 98% coverage of N. American municipalities, and how weak
of a signal that the antennae needs to report it's location I'm pretty
confident that the Carizzo Plain (That's CA right?)
>
> I think of LoJack as kind of a backup system.
>
> >Secondly, you're at the mercy of them having someone available
> >to actively search for your car. If they're short on officers (which
> >many times they are) you're stuck there waiting for them to get
around
> >to it.
>
> That's is also a drawback of your system, is it not? Unless you plan
> to personally apprehend the thieves and recover your car, you are
> dependent upon the police to "get around to it."

Not necessarily. Look at it from both scenarios:
Lojack: "hello officer, my car's been stolen, I have Lo-Jack"
VehicleLocate.net: "Hello Officer my car has been stolen, and it's at
1245 Harrison avenue"
With the LoJack system, they have to devote resources to the actual
searching (once of course they can devote someone to spend that time to
look) With the VehicleLocate.net system the searching aspect is
eliminated altogether. So the time constraints are reduced, therefore
the a nearby police officer can track the car and in most cases nab the
theif in the process.

>
> >Would you
> >really want to put yourself in the way of a car theif? Seriously
think
> >about that one.
>
> Indeed.
>
> But anyway, I wasn't attempting to debate the pros and cons of
LoJack.
> I merely pointed out that vehicle tracking and security devices don't
> necessarily result in any savings on insurance premiums. Back in
1991,
> when I had an alarm system installed in my 1991 Mustang LX 5.0, State
> Farm did give me a discount because it had the "passive arming"
> feature, but they recently stopped doing that, probably because alarm
> systems are now roundly ignored by everybody and no longer serve as a
> deterrent to thieves.
>
You're right, alarm systems in general are useless. They go off and
surrounding people (potential witnesses) ignore the noise and the theif
succeeds in snagging the car. With the system I'm pushing, there's no
alarm that goes off, there's no bells or whistles or sirens. It simply
gives you the ability to disable the car when you go to bed, so even
hotwiring it is useless. Then if they want the car bad enough they
just tow it. The system is configurable enough to send reports to your
e-mail or pager and let you control it from your desktop or phone etc.
All things that LoJack specifically does not do.

> BTW, if you're determined to pursue the anti-theft angle, why don't
> you add an input to your control unit that will trigger a report
> whenever the vehicle's alarm system is set off, like LoJack Early
> Warning does? Given what you already have, it would be trivial to
have
> the system send the owner a page or an email telling them their car
> has been tampered with (or that their alarm has false-triggered again
> and they need to come over and shut it off

Mainly because alarms, as stated earlier, are useless. The only way to
truly prevent your car from being stolen is lengthen the time it takes
to steal your car. The longer it takes to steal it, the less likely it
will get stolen.

>
> Personally, I'd rather have useful features like this than gimmicky
> eye-candy.
>
> --
> Sloth Kills!
> http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/

Now, to address the analogies between Beta and VHS, my analogy had more
to do with marketing. Beta was a better technology and was used by all
the news television stations for years and years. Yet VHS received the
mass marketing to the general public. Much like LoJack. They got the
marketing power to the point that LoJack is a household name. Same
thing with MD vs. CD. Although I think the CD had more to do with the
marketing that RCA wanted to tie in the 7" disc back to the days of the
first records that also were 7". Even though MD could hold more
information (albeit at a lower quality) did not have the skipping
issues that CD's had and would last longer than say a CD. Now all that
is moot due to digital storage etc. But I hope I've made my point. Is
that all the marketing in the world telling you that it's a better (or
the only) option out there, doesn't make it so.

I'm enjoying this exchange. Noone is being childish and I'm learning
more about the perception of the product. I hope to keep this dialouge
going farther.

"GPSMike" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> You're right, alarm systems in general are useless. They go off and
> surrounding people (potential witnesses) ignore the noise and the theif
> succeeds in snagging the car. With the system I'm pushing, there's no
> alarm that goes off, there's no bells or whistles or sirens. It simply
> gives you the ability to disable the car when you go to bed, so even
> hotwiring it is useless.

Most modern cars with key immobilizer systems also make it imposible to
hotwire.

> > BTW, if you're determined to pursue the anti-theft angle, why don't
> > you add an input to your control unit that will trigger a report
> > whenever the vehicle's alarm system is set off, like LoJack Early
> > Warning does? Given what you already have, it would be trivial to
> > have
> > the system send the owner a page or an email telling them their car
> > has been tampered with (or that their alarm has false-triggered again
> > and they need to come over and shut it off

> Mainly because alarms, as stated earlier, are useless. The only way to
> truly prevent your car from being stolen is lengthen the time it takes
> to steal your car. The longer it takes to steal it, the less likely it
> will get stolen.

But the quicker you are alerted to your car being stolen, the quicker you
can recover it. If my car is stolen in the middle of the night, I might not
know until I get up in the morning, go out to go to work and find it gone.
If your system calls me in the middle of the night and wakes me up, then I
might know it's stolen earlier, and could report it to police earlier, and
be more likely to recover it earlier / in better condition.

Some car alarms are silent alarms. They don't sound off a siren, but instead
they page you using a proprietary, limited range system. As Scott mentioned,
it would be trivial to get your system to respond to such a signal. Then
even if you are out of the RF range of the pager, your system could call the
owner's cell phone & automatically track the vehicle's route and position.
Also, if someone runs into your car and sets off the alarm, you would also
be likely to be able to respond to it, and might reduce the number of hit
and runs.

This would just be optional. The customer wouldn't be required to have such
an alarm system. That way if they already have an alarm, they can improve
the usefulness of both their alarm and your system.

> Now, to address the analogies between Beta and VHS, my analogy had more
> to do with marketing. Beta was a better technology and was used by all
> the news television stations for years and years. Yet VHS received the
> mass marketing to the general public.

> Same thing with MD vs. CD.

I think the real problem is that Sony loves making proprietary systems. They
wouldn't let other manufactures use their formats until they were already
behind in the race. VHS was more open, hence the popularity.

Open systems are more popular. Look at computers. Some will argue that
Macintoshes are a more stable, better system. So why don't they sell as
well? Because Apple was quite closed about their systems and wouldn't let
other manufactures make Mac Hardware (except for a brief period when Steve
Jobs didn't work for the company, at which point they had already lost the
race).

> Even though MD could hold more
> information (albeit at a lower quality) did not have the skipping
> issues that CD's had and would last longer than say a CD.

MD's are more complicated. They were introduced (1992) a good decade after
CD's (1982) were introduced to marketplace. By the time MDs were introduced,
many people had CD hardware, but not many had MD hardware, so pre-stamped
discs were CD's, and people bought CD equipment because of the vast
availability of discs. Because of the high volume of CD hardware, the prices
were lower than MD's. At the time only Sony made MD hardware, and it was
really expensive.

MD's were / are more of a replacement for re-recordable audio cassettes,
because they offer much higher quality than cassette, many more read/write
cycles (especially read), and they offer some CD like functions such as
tracks, and quicker and easier seeking. Many people (like myself) continued
using audio cassettes for recordings, because of the cheapness of the
equipment (and cassettes), and the availability of equipment (car cassette
decks were popular for many years before and after the introduction of MD,
and most people don't upgrade their stock radio).

By the time Sony opened up the MD market, CD players were becoming standard
equipment in cars, and computer CD burners were becoming popular, and where
they use an already existing, popular format, made them the home recordable
medium of choice. As well CD's were popular for computer data storage,
making the computer writers very versatile, making it hard to justify one
set of recording equipment for data, and another for audio. Sony
experimented with computer MD drives, but only held a couple hundred megs,
and were proprietary, so they paled in comparison to 650MB offered by CDs or
full size MO drives.

Around the same time CD burners became popular, digital music such as MP3s
were becoming popular. Very expensive, limited capacity flash memory based
MP3 players were popping up. Soon portable CD players that could play CD's
full of MP3s (holding 10 hours of music) started popping up, along with car
MP3-CD decks. These players are a good choice because they use a popular
format and can also play normal audio CDs, and they cost much less than
flash based players.

So again Sony comes too little, too late. They introduced their NetMD
system. MD's are a good choice for portable audio because they are a smaller
form factor, better shock protection, and comparable sound quality to a
portable CD players, making them similar to flash memory systems, but have
the potential to be better because the medium (which can hold ~140MB), is
much cheaper than flash memory. Yet again Sony insisted on shooting
themselves in the foot. Since Sony sells prerecorded CD's, they have a lot
of digital rights crap on their NetMD players. For starters all music has to
be converted to their proprietary format (which although technically
superior, isn't open), rather than allowing flexibility of both formats. You
cannot upload music from the player to a computer via digital means without
purchasing expensive equipment. This makes it not very attractive for people
that wish to record in the field on their MD player, and send it lossless
and quickly to their computer.

"GPSMike" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> You're right, alarm systems in general are useless. They go off and
> surrounding people (potential witnesses) ignore the noise and the theif
> succeeds in snagging the car. With the system I'm pushing, there's no
> alarm that goes off, there's no bells or whistles or sirens. It simply
> gives you the ability to disable the car when you go to bed, so even
> hotwiring it is useless.

Most modern cars with key immobilizer systems also make it imposible to
hotwire.

> > BTW, if you're determined to pursue the anti-theft angle, why don't
> > you add an input to your control unit that will trigger a report
> > whenever the vehicle's alarm system is set off, like LoJack Early
> > Warning does? Given what you already have, it would be trivial to
> > have
> > the system send the owner a page or an email telling them their car
> > has been tampered with (or that their alarm has false-triggered again
> > and they need to come over and shut it off

> Mainly because alarms, as stated earlier, are useless. The only way to
> truly prevent your car from being stolen is lengthen the time it takes
> to steal your car. The longer it takes to steal it, the less likely it
> will get stolen.

But the quicker you are alerted to your car being stolen, the quicker you
can recover it. If my car is stolen in the middle of the night, I might not
know until I get up in the morning, go out to go to work and find it gone.
If your system calls me in the middle of the night and wakes me up, then I
might know it's stolen earlier, and could report it to police earlier, and
be more likely to recover it earlier / in better condition.

Some car alarms are silent alarms. They don't sound off a siren, but instead
they page you using a proprietary, limited range system. As Scott mentioned,
it would be trivial to get your system to respond to such a signal. Then
even if you are out of the RF range of the pager, your system could call the
owner's cell phone & automatically track the vehicle's route and position.
Also, if someone runs into your car and sets off the alarm, you would also
be likely to be able to respond to it, and might reduce the number of hit
and runs.

This would just be optional. The customer wouldn't be required to have such
an alarm system. That way if they already have an alarm, they can improve
the usefulness of both their alarm and your system.

> Now, to address the analogies between Beta and VHS, my analogy had more
> to do with marketing. Beta was a better technology and was used by all
> the news television stations for years and years. Yet VHS received the
> mass marketing to the general public.

> Same thing with MD vs. CD.

I think the real problem is that Sony loves making proprietary systems. They
wouldn't let other manufactures use their formats until they were already
behind in the race. VHS was more open, hence the popularity.

Open systems are more popular. Look at computers. Some will argue that
Macintoshes are a more stable, better system. So why don't they sell as
well? Because Apple was quite closed about their systems and wouldn't let
other manufactures make Mac Hardware (except for a brief period when Steve
Jobs didn't work for the company, at which point they had already lost the
race).

> Even though MD could hold more
> information (albeit at a lower quality) did not have the skipping
> issues that CD's had and would last longer than say a CD.

MD's are more complicated. They were introduced (1992) a good decade after
CD's (1982) were introduced to marketplace. By the time MDs were introduced,
many people had CD hardware, but not many had MD hardware, so pre-stamped
discs were CD's, and people bought CD equipment because of the vast
availability of discs. Because of the high volume of CD hardware, the prices
were lower than MD's. At the time only Sony made MD hardware, and it was
really expensive.

MD's were / are more of a replacement for re-recordable audio cassettes,
because they offer much higher quality than cassette, many more read/write
cycles (especially read), and they offer some CD like functions such as
tracks, and quicker and easier seeking. Many people (like myself) continued
using audio cassettes for recordings, because of the cheapness of the
equipment (and cassettes), and the availability of equipment (car cassette
decks were popular for many years before and after the introduction of MD,
and most people don't upgrade their stock radio).

By the time Sony opened up the MD market, CD players were becoming standard
equipment in cars, and computer CD burners were becoming popular, and where
they use an already existing, popular format, made them the home recordable
medium of choice. As well CD's were popular for computer data storage,
making the computer writers very versatile, making it hard to justify one
set of recording equipment for data, and another for audio. Sony
experimented with computer MD drives, but only held a couple hundred megs,
and were proprietary, so they paled in comparison to 650MB offered by CDs or
full size MO drives.

Around the same time CD burners became popular, digital music such as MP3s
were becoming popular. Very expensive, limited capacity flash memory based
MP3 players were popping up. Soon portable CD players that could play CD's
full of MP3s (holding 10 hours of music) started popping up, along with car
MP3-CD decks. These players are a good choice because they use a popular
format and can also play normal audio CDs, and they cost much less than
flash based players.

So again Sony comes too little, too late. They introduced their NetMD
system. MD's are a good choice for portable audio because they are a smaller
form factor, better shock protection, and comparable sound quality to a
portable CD players, making them similar to flash memory systems, but have
the potential to be better because the medium (which can hold ~140MB), is
much cheaper than flash memory. Yet again Sony insisted on shooting
themselves in the foot. Since Sony sells prerecorded CD's, they have a lot
of digital rights crap on their NetMD players. For starters all music has to
be converted to their proprietary format (which although technically
superior, isn't open), rather than allowing flexibility of both formats. You
cannot upload music from the player to a computer via digital means without
purchasing expensive equipment. This makes it not very attractive for people
that wish to record in the field on their MD player, and send it lossless
and quickly to their computer.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> >I'm enjoying this exchange.
>
> You should - you're getting a lot of valuable feedback to improve your
> product. And you don't even have to pay my usual consulting fees.

Maybe he should start <g>