RGGregory,

Please don't confuse me with the warring parties here. My point was not to get ugly -
more to answer his challenge. In ANY other context, I think that would be a terrible idea.
Other than that, I thought OnStar would be an interesting topic for people to think about
before the C6 sales begin. I'm not emotionally invested in this topic but I can say that I will
not be buying UE1 on a new C6. By the way, I deleted the address. It scares me how
easy it is to track down people on this forum although scissors was particularly easy. He
basically advertises it. Privacy is an important topic.

 

OK lets put a chip under the skin to monitor location, pulse, skin temperature, as well as all your medical records, driving record, social security number, and credit history. Lets also have it be able to record conversations that include words like bomb, and kill, and sex with minors, and a host of other things.

Why not you have nothing to fear right?

Oh yeah this all readily available for broadcast at a moment when an appropriate RF signal is recieved. Lets be nice and use a good RSA encryption scheme.

Still think big brother is a good idea?


[Modified by Guru_4_hire, 9:23 PM 12/29/2003]

 

Simple names and light conversation holds valuable information. As for OnStar versus Cellphone, it all depends on which one is easier to break into or more fun to mess with.

We're not talking about "Super Spies." Casual information collected from a large number of non-sensitive government vehicles can still be highly sensitive when put together.

Again you assume that it would always be hard each time. Back doors are placed in systems all the time. Plus if you can monitor many vehicles, you can time things to hit a house when the neighbors are gone, too. Once they all have OnStar, of course.

That makes no sense. Not having OnStar does not cause you to die. The chances of being in an accident where there are no witnesses and where OnStar makes the difference between life and death is miniscule. I'm probably more likely to be struck by lightning.

Very good, you can read a web page. We'll work on basic math later.

My assumptions about your level of knowledge are accurate, unless you're purposely dumbing down your comments.

Because there isn't any. Haven't you been reading? You are the one who made the claim that only people committing illegal acts have anything to fear from OnStar. I never claimed that any of this stuff was likely, only possible. So clearly there are reasons to fear it. Fear doesn't come in one level of "100%." You can have slight fears or "concerns."

 

You mean like a factory making more buttons for the German winter coats indicated a major winter offensive in WW2.

 

Will it get the paramedics out to me faster should I have a heart attack, etc?

Do you currently not say bomb or kill on your cellphone?

I hope you don't use "sex with minors" on a regular basis if at all. I might of used that phrase in front of a TV when they were talking about Mr. Jackson during the evening news, but I doubt I have or would say that in my car? Although, I guess the news guy on the radio might reporting the news...

What's your point again? (Rhetorical question)

 

Just pointing how ridiculous your "you have nothing to fear unless you are doing something wrong" arguement sounds.

 

I'm against OnStar not having a defeat button that physically disconnects the antenna when pressed. That's it.

Because I don't care. But I'm not some shallow person who cares only for my own freedom, I care also about the freedom of others. Putting in a tracking system that does not have an easy-to-use physical defeat is not in The People's best interest.

My home location is listed, but not my current real-time location. Big difference. And you can get a home location just from someone's license plate.

 

Or an option to not get it installed in your vehicle so you dont have useless buttons hanging out in your interior.

 

Okay, guys, another few hours gone sitting in front of a computer arguing about nothing. Fact is, OnStar is here, you have a choice. You can disable it as Scissors pointed out if you don't like the invasion of privacy. Key word is "choice." DONE

Scissors - It's been a slice. Not as young as you so I don't intend on caring on this fun for hours on end. I will keep my dumb downed comments to myself and continue to read your intellectually superior posts. :flag

 

And like you and me, "The People" have a choice when they are buying the car right? Either they don't get the option, don't buy the car if standard or disable it.

You REALLY want something to worry about Scissors? Worry about the pending OBD-III that will broadcast emmissions data at a whim. That has more impact on use since most of us are MOD feaks here. ;)

Either way, have a good night sir.


[Modified by H82BFST, 8:46 PM 12/29/2003]

 

I dont think thats as bad as all that given that we are already emitting half as much as the average new vehicle. Means we have some fluf room.

 

For now. But the way to introduce unpopular technology is as an "option" and bundled with popular technology. Eventually people get used to it, the ruckus dies down, and the option part of the issue goes away.

Yeah, that's also annoying, but further down the road.

 

Runge,

My post was most definitely not directed towards anything you've posted in this thread. Sorry if you thought it was. Keep posting that good stuff (I'm one of the few that reads most of patent links you post and that list of questions for Hill you posted recently was right on :D :thumbs:

 

RGGregory,

Thanks! After posting the article, I should have kept my mouth
shut. I regret not having done so. Oh well!!

 

Runge - It's a forum. I would hope that no one takes a little ribbing that seriously that we would have to fear one another or their posts. We are all Corvette enthusiasts first and formost, challenging one another in a thread debate can sometimes get heated but it's always just friendly ribbing.

I'm sure if we all got together we'ld all have a great time and lots of laughs over some beers! :cheers:

:chevy

 

Hey Runge Kutta,

Did anyone else in Corvette land ever "get" your name? I have used the R K method a few times over the years for solving differential equations through time stepping. Funny name, made my day (I know, get a life).

Dyna

 

I did, but didn't want to admit I knew it :jester Spent the start of my engineering career writing computational fluid dynamics code for submarine weapon launcher impulse systems (ie turbine pumps and ram pumps). :D


[Modified by RGGregory, 1:43 AM 12/30/2003]

 

Dyna,

Well, the forum asks you to name yourself. I don't know what went through
most peoples minds but I just used something that I had spent five or so
years working on. If anyone needs any advice on integrating ODEs whether
they are stiff, nonstiff, or separably stiff, let me know. I have quasi-
reviews on each of the three.

RGGregory,

I've also spent a bunch of time in CFD but not for engineering contexts but rather
to simulate the equations from first principles. It's called direct numerical
simulation. We used it to look at gas-phase flame structures. If you want to
move away from simple fuels like methane, the chemical mechanisms introduce
artificially fast time scales that can break the integrator. Gaseous heptane
mechanisms introduce time scales of 30 femtoseconds or so!! Now, the trick
is to integrate the stiff chemical terms implicitly and the nonstiff terms
explicitly but avoid loss of accuracy and stability due to coupling issues.
Most attempts at this are done in a decoupled way that makes accuracy and
stability tentative. We are are able to stay fourth- or even fifth-order on
the partitioned problem with no numerical instability - partly through fancy
error control strategies. It's all interesting but nobody will pay for the
research and I'm not sure that much better schemes are possible. It's also
disheartening to realize that most engineering codes use implicit Euler
or the classic RK4 when there are more accurate methods available with error
estimation and controllers. Users run the codes at full throttle with their
eyes closed. Implicit codes use such large time steps that the order property
is not observed in practice. Oh well!! It was fun while it lasted.

 

Well...what a joy it was reading this thread. :rolleyes:

I really gained a lot of C6 knowledge, thanks everyone.

Arent these pissing matches better left to "Off Topic"?

This thread just goes to show you that Scissors will argue with anyone about anything. Scroll through almost every thread he posts in and he is debating something with someone rather than just posting his opinion and letting that speak for itself. I know that just by making this post I will feel the all mighty wrath of his infinite wisdom.

I humbly apologize for my outburst Scissors, please forgive me.

 

Stop being such a crybaby.


[Modified by Scissors, 7:55 AM 12/30/2003]