Re: Cell phones

default wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:00:08 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous Sender
<anonymous@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

default wrote:

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:25:26 -0500 (EST), "J(ohn|ane) Doe"
<xor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


So you admit that you were full of shit when you were spouting off
about laws requiring GPS chips in phones?

Before running your own game why not read the whole thread?

This was in my second post:

". . . but the FCC requires positioning information - (not necessarily
GPS) as of 2006 . . ."

Yup, exactly NOT what you said and exactly WHAT other people said.

You were wrong, your own cite proves it, you admitted it, but you're
still bitching.

Why?



The original rant was about TV shows downplaying the ability of cell
phones to provide up to the minute tracking information. NOT about the
technology involved.

Please try to stay focused.

Nobody had anything to say about cell phone tracking requirements, the
fact that geo-location is required, or the idea that it's a bad thing in
general. The problem here is your FUD regarding GPS chips being installed
in all phones by mandate of law. That is nothing but the very same made-
for-prime-time TV caliber FUD you're claiming to be opposing here.

If you want to make a point, then make it. Don't play stupid little games
trying to prop it up with popular buzzwords and outright lies.

I would not expect people who aren't working in electronics to make a
distinction between TDDF and GPS technology, and the distinction is moot
with respect to the basic idea regarding TV shows and their portrayal
of the capabilities of government tracking.

So your "defense" of your blatant misinformation is that people are too
stupid to make a distinction between GPS and simple triangulation?

Apparently your audience is a little smarter than you think it is.

GPS is the favored technology and people know about GPS. How many are
aware that terrestrial propagation time delays can provide the same
information?

When someone did raise a more technical question I did make the
distinction.

No, you cited at least one document that flatly contradicted you. Only
when THAT faux pas was pointed out did you finally relent and admit that
your original statement was 100% false. But you're still trying to defend
it with more smoke and mirrors none the less. :(

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OSHA: Two Federal DOT Agencies Ban Hand-Held Phone [telecom]
    ... before using a cell-phone while driving wouldn't be allowed by the "powers ... My point is basically that a lot of us do silly things like use phones ... By requiring people to basically "Put up or shut up" by having to prove ... There will always be a section of people who will disobey any law ...
    (comp.dcom.telecom)
  • Re: As expected, Apple faces an uphill battle for the iPhone in Europe
    ... sell their phones locked, Cingular/ATT GSM phones seem to be unlocked. ... I'm not just taling about locked phones, but also about requiring that ... the customer purchase a 2-year subscription. ... There have been a few comments that the iPhone will NOT require a 2 year ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: As expected, Apple faces an uphill battle for the iPhone in Europe
    ... It seems to have worked in the US, but won't fly in Europe. ... sell their phones locked, Cingular/ATT GSM phones seem to be unlocked. ... I'm not just taling about locked phones, but also about requiring that ... the customer purchase a 2-year subscription. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: RoHS => tin whiskers?
    ... Jim Thompson wrote: ... must be traceable by location for emergency calls, ... phones have GPS chips in them. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)