PING: Ted Mittlestadt

I couldn't help but think of you, as I read my subscription of
AutoWeek:

http://www.cars.com/news/stories/111604_storyb_an.jhtml


God Bless,
Dan'L

("If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around.")

"Dan Larsen" > wrote in message
...
>
> I couldn't help but think of you, as I read my subscription of
> AutoWeek:
>
> http://www.cars.com/news/stories/111604_storyb_an.jhtml
>
>

Actually, this is a really good article, although it is probably fatally too
long
for the average person to go through. It fairly portrays both sides of the
argument I think, although it does gloss over the deactivation issue with
the comment:

"there's little he or she can do to prevent the device from recording data
short
of shorting out the car's airbags and other safety systems."

This really isn't true. Right now the black boxes included with the Onstar
are ones that people are paying for so of course there's no market for
black box defeaters.

But once black boxes are mandatory, a market will exist for black box
defeaters. A simple, crude but effective device would be wiring a
small circuit and coil into the system with a button under the dash the
driver could push. If a driver gets into an accident that they know is
their fault, a push of the button would kick over the relay to cut out
the computer from the rest of the vehicle electrical system, then pump
several thousand or so volts into the sensor inputs, destroying the
computer.

I particularly liked the quote:

"It all seems to be going toward the idea of tracking people as much as
possible
so companies can wring as much money as possible out of people"

The OnStar example was a hoot. I don't have OnStar and I cannot imagine why
people that have OnStar-capabable vehicles pay the monthly fee for it, it
seems
to me to be one of the most obnoxious and useless services imaginable. They
just
duplicate 911 and charge you for it. Hell, even my cell phone today has a
GPS in
it that is activated when you dial 911.

I do have one beef with the article though. It stated:

"Oregon is working on a toll-road system that downloads global positioning s
atellite data
and odometer readings at the gasoline pump to collect fuel taxes on each
gallon based on the
amount a motorist drives"

This isn't really true. Oregon is working on a system like this but only
for trucks - because
we are one of the few states with the weight mile tax on large (semi)
trucks. There are
NO toll roads in the state. And the weight-mile tax was almost repealed a
couple years
ago through initative petition. If the state ever did try slapping a system
like this on
general motorists, there would be an initative petition that would probably
scrap the
entire large truck tax and would definitely scrap this system, so I don't
think the politicians
in the state here would take the risk of losing the truck tax revenue.

Ted

"Dan Larsen" > wrote in message
...
>
> I couldn't help but think of you, as I read my subscription of
> AutoWeek:
>
> http://www.cars.com/news/stories/111604_storyb_an.jhtml
>
>

Actually, this is a really good article, although it is probably fatally too
long
for the average person to go through. It fairly portrays both sides of the
argument I think, although it does gloss over the deactivation issue with
the comment:

"there's little he or she can do to prevent the device from recording data
short
of shorting out the car's airbags and other safety systems."

This really isn't true. Right now the black boxes included with the Onstar
are ones that people are paying for so of course there's no market for
black box defeaters.

But once black boxes are mandatory, a market will exist for black box
defeaters. A simple, crude but effective device would be wiring a
small circuit and coil into the system with a button under the dash the
driver could push. If a driver gets into an accident that they know is
their fault, a push of the button would kick over the relay to cut out
the computer from the rest of the vehicle electrical system, then pump
several thousand or so volts into the sensor inputs, destroying the
computer.

I particularly liked the quote:

"It all seems to be going toward the idea of tracking people as much as
possible
so companies can wring as much money as possible out of people"

The OnStar example was a hoot. I don't have OnStar and I cannot imagine why
people that have OnStar-capabable vehicles pay the monthly fee for it, it
seems
to me to be one of the most obnoxious and useless services imaginable. They
just
duplicate 911 and charge you for it. Hell, even my cell phone today has a
GPS in
it that is activated when you dial 911.

I do have one beef with the article though. It stated:

"Oregon is working on a toll-road system that downloads global positioning s
atellite data
and odometer readings at the gasoline pump to collect fuel taxes on each
gallon based on the
amount a motorist drives"

This isn't really true. Oregon is working on a system like this but only
for trucks - because
we are one of the few states with the weight mile tax on large (semi)
trucks. There are
NO toll roads in the state. And the weight-mile tax was almost repealed a
couple years
ago through initative petition. If the state ever did try slapping a system
like this on
general motorists, there would be an initative petition that would probably
scrap the
entire large truck tax and would definitely scrap this system, so I don't
think the politicians
in the state here would take the risk of losing the truck tax revenue.

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Dan Larsen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I couldn't help but think of you, as I read my subscription of
>>AutoWeek:
>>
>> http://www.cars.com/news/stories/111604_storyb_an.jhtml
>>
>>
>
>
> Actually, this is a really good article, although it is probably fatally too
> long
> for the average person to go through.

Just like most of Ted's posts. :-)


Matt

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> "Dan Larsen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I couldn't help but think of you, as I read my subscription of
>>AutoWeek:
>>
>> http://www.cars.com/news/stories/111604_storyb_an.jhtml
>>
>>
>
>
> Actually, this is a really good article, although it is probably fatally too
> long
> for the average person to go through.

Just like most of Ted's posts. :-)


Matt

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> But once black boxes are mandatory, a market will exist for black
> box defeaters.

Theoretically, yes.

Practically? It will be some time. Why?

Don't most Ford or GM vehicles now come with data recorders? For at
least a year now? If so, are we seeing black-box de-activators for
them?

Only until those cars with data recorders start entering the used-car
market will you see people who

(a) are more likely to "customize" their vehicle in such a drastic
manner
(b) are more likely to be of the age demographic to benefit from
de-activating the data recording mechanism

New car buyers are the LEAST likely to tinker with their new car's
computer. Remember, unless they paid cash for their new car, they
won't do anything to it (like fry the computer) that would put them on
the hook with the dealership (or the bank). But once the car is old
enough to be a used car, then people do all sorts of **** to it.

You won't see generic black-box deactivators until the year 2010. You
will probably see custom de-activators for the Mustang or Corvette
within a year from now.

Insurance companies could also write in a provision that intensionally
defeating the data-recording capability could render your insurance
null and void. I bet Geico will be the first to do that.

> I do have one beef with the article though. It stated:
>
> "Oregon is working on a toll-road system that downloads global
> positioning s atellite data and odometer readings at the gasoline
> pump to collect fuel taxes on each gallon based on the
> amount a motorist drives"

I've often wondered why, on toll roads like the Penn turn pike, that
they don't fine you for speeding since it would be very easy to do by
knowing when you picked up your entry ticket and when you feed it to
the machine on the exit ramp that they know when (and where) you got
on (and off) the toll road that they could easily calculate your
average speed.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> But once black boxes are mandatory, a market will exist for black
> box defeaters.

Theoretically, yes.

Practically? It will be some time. Why?

Don't most Ford or GM vehicles now come with data recorders? For at
least a year now? If so, are we seeing black-box de-activators for
them?

Only until those cars with data recorders start entering the used-car
market will you see people who

(a) are more likely to "customize" their vehicle in such a drastic
manner
(b) are more likely to be of the age demographic to benefit from
de-activating the data recording mechanism

New car buyers are the LEAST likely to tinker with their new car's
computer. Remember, unless they paid cash for their new car, they
won't do anything to it (like fry the computer) that would put them on
the hook with the dealership (or the bank). But once the car is old
enough to be a used car, then people do all sorts of **** to it.

You won't see generic black-box deactivators until the year 2010. You
will probably see custom de-activators for the Mustang or Corvette
within a year from now.

Insurance companies could also write in a provision that intensionally
defeating the data-recording capability could render your insurance
null and void. I bet Geico will be the first to do that.

> I do have one beef with the article though. It stated:
>
> "Oregon is working on a toll-road system that downloads global
> positioning s atellite data and odometer readings at the gasoline
> pump to collect fuel taxes on each gallon based on the
> amount a motorist drives"

I've often wondered why, on toll roads like the Penn turn pike, that
they don't fine you for speeding since it would be very easy to do by
knowing when you picked up your entry ticket and when you feed it to
the machine on the exit ramp that they know when (and where) you got
on (and off) the toll road that they could easily calculate your
average speed.

MoPar Man wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
>>But once black boxes are mandatory, a market will exist for black
>>box defeaters.
>
>
> Theoretically, yes.

The next big market for spammers - how to get free cable TV *AND* kill
your black box - all in one e-mail. Their postage costs will be cut in
half: 1/2 X $0.00. 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

MoPar Man wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
>>But once black boxes are mandatory, a market will exist for black
>>box defeaters.
>
>
> Theoretically, yes.

The next big market for spammers - how to get free cable TV *AND* kill
your black box - all in one e-mail. Their postage costs will be cut in
half: 1/2 X $0.00. 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> MoPar Man wrote:
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> >
> >>But once black boxes are mandatory, a market will exist for black
> >>box defeaters.
> >
> >
> > Theoretically, yes.
>
> The next big market for spammers - how to get free cable TV *AND* kill
> your black box - all in one e-mail. Their postage costs will be cut in
> half: 1/2 X $0.00. 8^)
>

Aw **** Bill, don't give 'em any ideas!!

Ted