HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rll@frieda.mitre.org (Roberto L. Landrau)
Subject: Re: RADAR JAMMER
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 11:37:12 GMT

In article <13150012@hpsad.sad.hp.com> ggg@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Gary
Goodlund) writes:
>The ad I saw for one of these stated that it was for amatuer radio operators

As explained in another article, an amateur radio operator may allow
you to operate in the K radar band frequencies, but it does not allow
you to broadcast a signal intended to jam another transceiver.

>and was illegal for jamming use but they clearly stated how well it worked
>for that.  Kind of like "...it's a great jammer but we'd never suggest that
>anyone might break the law with it!"

Kind of like "I smoked it, ... but I didn't inhale it!"

--
The opinions stated above are not necessarily my employer's.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto L. Landrau    KC1YP    landrau@mitre.org  rll@linus.mitre.org
The MITRE Corporation  Bedford, MA 01730          rll@linus.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen)
Subject: Re: Tailgaters abound!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 03:22:08 GMT

In article <Bt9CHH.I4n@news.cso.uiuc.edu> khan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) writes:
>Actually, it's only a 2-second rule up to maybe 45MPH, after which you're
>better off with a FOUR second following distance. I personally have no
>problems with tailgating (in most circumstances) - I try my best to be a
>loner out on the road, as far away from other cars as possible (out of sight
>in both directions is ideal). I can go as fast as necessary to achieve that 
>kind of space cushion, too; not like the "safe" drivers who go 55 and not one
>centimeter-per-hour over.

but if you're out by yourself, you're also more likely to get
picked off by the revenue collectors.  nice choice, isn't it?
i prefer to get lost in the pack if they're going at the speed i want
to be going.
-teddy
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen)
Subject: Re: Illegal Acceleration?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 20:26:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.142006.1@us.oracle.com> eoates@us.oracle.com writes:
>Can't cite the code sections, but in California, you can accelerate as fast as
>you want to the limit provided your tires don't squeel.  If you smoke 'em up,
>then it is exhibition of speed (racing...) or reckless driving depending upon
>the opinion of the arresting officer.

what if you're deaf and can't hear the tires squeal?

>Interesting side note on full throttle acceleration: the drivers manual
>for the
>911 Turbo (1989, not sure of others) requires that you accelerate at full
>throttle in first gear to 5000RPM once the car is warm EVERY TIME YOU
>DRIVE IT. 
>The reason: to clean out the wastegate.  Now, 5000RPM is 35MPH, but you get
>there in about 1 second :) with a lot of noice when the turbo cuts in.

0-35 mph in one second?  in your dreams.  try two.
if you were talking about a bennetton F1 race car, i might believe you.
btw, i like this owner's manual.
-teddy
From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Illegal Acceleration?
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:29:03 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Reply-To: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

>I have wondered about acceleration and the law.  Could I possibly be
>breaking some inane law by accelerating up to, but not exceeding, the
>posted speed limit very rapidly?  

There is usually such a law, left up to the nonquantitative 
discretion of the nice officer.  The offense is generally called 
something like "Exhibition of Speed."  It is used to take teenage
immortals down a peg or two when they seem confused about the 
difference between Main Street and a drag strip, but the particular 
incident doesn't seem to merit the more serious charges of "racing" 
or "reckless driving."  In other words, a minor ticket whose wording
causes one's parents to have a major cow.

>I wonder about this more often now that I have 0-60 times in the 3
>second range.  

How did you get the catapult officer to start using nitrous oxide?

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
From: ahm@spatula.rent.com (Andreas Meyer)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Flashing to Pass: An Observation
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:24:57 GMT
Reply-To: ahm@spatula.rent.com (Andreas Meyer)
Organization: Billig und Schnell Racing, Dunellen NJ

khan@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman) writes:
> Then there's the Autobahn version which basically means "get the hell out
> of the way you slow ass piece of poo-poo!" normally used when someone on a 
> multilane protected access road is blocking your way.

The way it's used on the Autobahn is if you're in the "hammer lane"
and you're coming up on someone fast, you flash while you're still
quite a distance away. The meaning there is "I'm coming up fast,
please have moved by the time I get there".

> One other way to use your lights, should you be so inclined: when a semi 
> passes you, you can flash your lights to let the trucker know that his
> trailer is now clear of the front of your car and it's safe for him to 
> merge back into the right lane.

Um, you'd better be awful careful *when* you do this... 
If it's night-time, and you flash your brights at a trucker, he's 
liable to come flatten your face. (You see, he's got these really 
big mirrors, and you've just wrecked his night vision...)

To let him know he's clear, *dip* your lights, 
(ie. turn them off then back on).

THEN,
> He'll thank you by blinking his "thank you
> lights" (for want of a better term; they're little Christmas-tree lights
> which line the edges of the trailer and are on an independent circuit from
> the head- and running lights). 

Yes, they're "running lights" or "markers". 
I think the ones on the trailer are on a separate circuit.

> I haven't done this in years, however, since
> I'm usually travelling a wee bit faster than the trucks are. ;-)

Must be nice not to travel during rush hour...

Cheers,
Andy
--
 Andreas Meyer, N2FYE               Warning: due to the shortage of robots,
 ahm@spatula.rent.com               our workers are human and will therefore
 ..!rutgers!bobsbox!spatula!ahm     react unpredictably under stress.
From: harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Illegal Acceleration?
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:51:39 GMT
Organization: PictureTel Corporation

In article <1992Aug17.164537.25359@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> jrd@po.CWRU.Edu (John R. Daker) writes:
>
>I have wondered about acceleration and the law.  Could I possibly be
>breaking some inane law by accelerating up to, but not exceeding, the
>posted speed limit very rapidly?  For example, using the full 0 to 45
>potential of my car?  

An officer might write you up for excessive *display* of speed, even if
you do not exceed the speed limit.  Whether or not it would stand up in
court is another story.  I suspect that the point of the ticket would
be more as a wake-up call than as a civil charge.
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                 PictureTel, but they ought to be!
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,misc.legal
From: mpalmer@encore.com (Mike Palmer)
Subject: Re: Traffic Court Advice
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:06:56 GMT

forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:


>Try your local library under the title "Beating a traffic ticket" or
>"How to beat a traffic ticket."  There are some good ones out there.

There's also a book titled "Beating the radar rap" - very good.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: Re: Tailgaters abound!
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 21:48:03 GMT

one thing i like about my car is it has ABS...

ABS is a tailgaters nightmare! <grin...>

i am sure you can draw your own conclusions
--
No part of Marshal may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
translated, transcribed, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means manual,
electric, electronic, electromagnetic, mechanical, chemical, optical, or
otherwise, without prior explicit written permission from CPEX development.
From: jimb@access.digex.com (Jim Brooking)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Flashing to Pass: An Observation
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:21:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National Commitee to Keep Slower Traffic Right

In article <v=dyk_+@rpi.edu> garrem@aix.rpi.edu (Matthew Olsen Garretson) writes:
>[discussion 'bout flashing at trucks deleted]
>
>Don't forget that flashing the headlights is also a way to warn oncoming cars of
>a speedtrap that they are approaching.
>

>there's one drawback: you might see flashing headlights coming the other way
>and slow down (heaven forbid!) unecessarily.  Happens to me anyway.

Gawd...  I was on this nice twisty backroad travelling (as I usually
do) with my headlights on (daytime).  I came up behind a car going
<darnit> the speed limit.  Some dolt coming the other way
decided to be a good-natured-idiot and flashed his lights at me
(because mine were on).  Naturally the car in front slows down to
5 or 10 UNDER because she (I saw the hair) thinks a cop is ahead.
Irritating to no end...

Funny:  I see more people with lights on, and have been getting flashed
a lot less over the last few months...  (Not to bring THAT thread
up again, mind y'all...)

--
jimb@access.digex.com  | (Cage) 1991 323se     ZCP-710   |     Comus Road
Merry Land (MD) U.S.A. | (Bike) 1986 GSXR750    (sold)   |     ClarksBURG
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But of course, I have three eyes.  I have clairvoyant paranoia.  -King Missile
From: lee@Gwinnett.COM (Lee Reese)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: LIDAR - A detector alone is not enough!
Date: 22 Aug 92 23:49:41 GMT
Organization: Gwinnett Computer Services, Atlanta(Duluth), GA

>
>It is not the flat surfaces that get you, its the reflectors.  They should
>reflect far more of the laser beam than just about any flat surface on
>the car.   One of the magazines did a test and I seem to remember after
>covering up the reflectors and the silver molding the range in which they
>could lock on you was reduced enough to make the gun useless.  
>
>		Roger Heflin
>
>-- 
>Rogerhef@Matt.ksu.ksu.edu                        Roger Heflin


What about putting a tinted cover over the reflectors (i.e. dark tinted 
headlight covers)?  Would this help?

Lee Reese
lee@gwinnett.com
From: rogerhef@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Roger Heflin)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: LIDAR - A detector alone is not enough!
Date: 18 Aug 1992 12:46:58 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

In <1992Aug18.000528.24725@encore.com> mpalmer@encore.com (Mike Palmer) writes:

>Having just viewed an article on CNBC about the new LIDAR guns, it would 
>appear that a detector alone is useless.  What is needed is a countermeasures
>unit that locks on to the laser beam & jams it.  Since we're talking about 
>light here the FCC shouldn't have much say in it.  It should be real easy
>for a detector to switch on a laser beam & direct it toward the gun to 
>'blind' it.  Sounds like a good business oportunity here.

It would do some good they said it gives you about 1-second warning, and
that is assuming that when he first hits you with it that he is close enough
to get a lock on your car, hitting the brakes while he is trying to get a 
lock will make if very difficult and he won't know exactly how fast you
were going.


>Also, since the LIDAR depends on finding a flat surface on the car, from which
>to bounce the beam, cars with sloping hoods and little flat surface at the
>front should be much harder to capture.  It should be relatively easy to
>eliminate flat surfaces.  Matt black cars would also be more stealthy.

It is not the flat surfaces that get you, its the reflectors.  They should
reflect far more of the laser beam than just about any flat surface on
the car.   One of the magazines did a test and I seem to remember after
covering up the reflectors and the silver molding the range in which they
could lock on you was reduced enough to make the gun useless.  

		Roger Heflin

-- 
Rogerhef@Matt.ksu.ksu.edu                        Roger Heflin
From: romanenkod@gtephx.UUCP (Dan Romanenko)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: What is a "jake brake"?
Keywords: brake
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:45:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: gtephx.1992Aug20.164527.24423
Organization: AG Communication Systems - Phoenix, AZ

While traveling through Fredonia, Arizona earlier this month, I
saw a sign stating "NO JAKE BRAKES ALLOWED IN TOWN". None of
us in the vehicle could guess, so... what is a "jake brake"?

                                      -Dan



-- 
Dan Romanenko             Voice: (602) 581-4663        AG Communication Systems
Quality Engineering       Fax:   (602) 582-7111        P.O. Box 52179
UUCP: ....!{ncar!noao!enuucp | att}!gtephx!romanenkod  Phoenix, AZ 85072-2179
Internet: gtephx!romanenkod@enuucp.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: bednarek@picard.med.ge.com (Dennis Bednarek Mfg 4-6971)
Subject: Re: '79 Mustang
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 09:19:03 GMT

F O R D
i r e a
x   p i
    a l
    i y
    p

Thats your problem I bet try a GM product.

--

  
###############################################################################
###NEVER - NEVERMORE###########################################################
###############################################################################
####################################What are the contents of the oblong box?##
###############################################################################
  The usual disclaimer of self and employer applies to all above comments.
#
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: What is a "jake brake"?
Keywords: brake
Date: 21 Aug 92 07:21:44 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

romanenkod@gtephx.UUCP (Dan Romanenko) writes:

>While traveling through Fredonia, Arizona earlier this month, I
>saw a sign stating "NO JAKE BRAKES ALLOWED IN TOWN". None of
>us in the vehicle could guess, so... what is a "jake brake"?

You ever hear a sound coming from a truck that sounds like a real
loud exhaust except the truck is slowing down instead of accelerating?
That's a Jake Brake at work.  It's a compression release mechanism
that turns the engine into a very effective brake that does not
overheat and fade.

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: waco@cbnewse.cb.att.com (john.l.broughton)
Subject: Re: RADAR JAMMER
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:20:56 GMT


Subject: Re: RADAR JAMMER
In article <1992Aug15.200100.18087@cabot.balltown.cma.COM> welty@cabot.
balltown.cma.COM (richard welty) writes

>>I thought jammer are illegal...  
>>Don't jammer have limited range...?
>
>jammers are illegal in certain contexts, and are grey areas in other
>contexts.  the FCC has rules about radio transmitters that casual
>jamming may well violate, although licensed amateur operators apparently
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>can skirt these.  however, an officer who figures out what is going
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  This is completely false.  We have no right to jam any frequency and
  we are bound by Part 97 of the FCC Rules and Regulations.  Of course, there
  are hams as well as anyone else who break rules.  Jammers who are caught
  and prosecuted loose their licenses and can be subject to fines in
  the neighborhood of $10,000. 

  Radar jamming is illegal, period.  The last thing anyone wants to jam
  is any police/fire/public service transmission.  The officials and courts
  frown on it and penalties can be very severe.

>on can probably make someone caught with a jammer fairly miserable,
>given that there are various and sundry laws about interfering with
>a police officer performing his duties.  you pays your money and you
>takes your chances.
>
>richard
>-- 
>richard welty                            518-393-7228
>welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
>  ``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
>    -- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck
>

73,

John L. Broughton, WB9VGJ
AT&T
Naperville, IL
john.l.broughton@att.com
att!john.l.broughton

#############################################################
# We have inherited the great principles upon which liberty #
# is based, but we have not inherited liberty.  That must   #
# be secured and maintained by every new generation.        #
#                                     -- John Sirica        #
#############################################################
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: jimb@access.digex.com (Jim Brooking)
Subject: Re: Illegal Acceleration?
Organization: National Commitee to Keep Slower Traffic Right
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:48:14 GMT

In article <lkdykmb@rpi.edu> garrem@aix.rpi.edu (Matthew Olsen Garretson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.164537.25359@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> jrd@po.CWRU.Edu (John R. Daker) writes:
>>
>>I have wondered about acceleration and the law.  Could I possibly be
>>breaking some inane law by accelerating up to, but not exceeding, the
>>posted speed limit very rapidly?  For example, using the full 0 to 45
>>potential of my car?  
>
>A friend of mine was pulled over and questioned for 20 minutes for peeling out
>(in a very small way) from a traffic light.

I was on my bike one day and left a cop at a light.  Zero to 45mph speed
limit in 0.001 seconds...  At the next light, he came back along side of
me and I got a nasty "don'tdothatagain" look.  8^)

--
jimb@access.digex.com  | (Cage) 1991 323se     ZCP-710   |     Comus Road
Merry Land (MD) U.S.A. | (Bike) 1986 GSXR750    (sold)   |     ClarksBURG
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But of course, I have three eyes.  I have clairvoyant paranoia.  -King Missile


Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Mike Suter)
Subject: Re: LIDAR - A detector alone is not enough!
Organization: BITS, St. Louis, MO
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:13:12 GMT

>>I saw a short segment on the local news for LIDAR, and during that
>>segment, they were on a bridge, looking down at the *rear* of the
>>cars, targeting license plates at very short range.

>Well, one good thing about that is the cosine error would really knock
>the wind out of your apparent speed.

True, but this would decrease as they increased their target range.

Mike
-- 
mike%jim.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
QUIT
post.wustl.edu
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: shoppa@erin.caltech.edu (TIM SHOPPA)
Subject: Driving 35 (Was: Re: Driving 55)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:13:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.222031.7419@informix.com>, neilw@informix.com (Neil Williams) writes...
> 
>So this idea occurred to me the other day - what if you actually
>started a nationwide movement to drive exactly 55, or less,
>actually, since 55 is a "limit".  Let's assume for the sake
>of argument that we get 90% compliance - which would actually
>force 100% compliance since the other 10% would be stuck in
>traffic.
> 
>Would the resulting traffic jams and congestion, and loss
>of revenue cause government to wake up and raise the limit?
> 
>The extra beauty is that even cops and government officials
>can't speed when there's 4 lanes of bumper to bumper traffic
>all going 55.  They'd get frustrated pretty fast, I think.
> 
>Oh, the beauty of it - commuters, vacationers, cops, ambulances,
>the President, judges, we'd *all* be stuck in traffic!  How
>long would the situation last, I wonder?
> 
>--Neil
> 
>-- 
>Neil Williams: neilw@informix.com

Why not just make the speed limit 35 everywhere?  Yeah, everybody would
complain.  But, instead of having the above-mentioned problems of
traffic jams and congestion, many of these problems would go away.  After
all, who would drive anywhere at 35 MPH if there was any other choice
of transportation, like bicycle, foot or public transit?

Traffic at 35 MPH could actually follow each other more safely at a shorter
distance, actually increasing the number of cars that can safely be
on the road at once.  (not that cars follow each other at a safe distance
at 55 MPH or 70 MPH in the first place.)  There would be very few fatal
accidents on the highways at this reduced speed, as well.

Nobody really needs to go over 35, after all.  Who really needs to go any
faster?  Come on, you aren't that anxious to get to work!  Relax and
enjoy the trip!

					Tim (Shoppa@erin.caltech.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: Consequences of getting a ticket
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:12:38 GMT

lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:

>I don't know the answer to your question, but one important piece of
>information is that (at least in my experience in N.Y. state), the
>important date is the "conviction" date, which is often the date on
>which you pay the ticket.  It's not the date of the offense.  So just
>when I thought a ticket had become insignificant wrt my insurance
>premiums, I found that I actually had another three months to go
>because I had delayed that long paying the ticket.

    Note that if you REALLY want to delay your "conviction" date, you can
also file a not guilty plea, get a court date, etc, and then pay the fine
the day before the court date.  I once did this for a ticket issued on
1/17 and ended up paying the ticket on 8/27 of the same year.  This also
has the added benefit of making the revenue collector get his case together,
make plans for showing up at court, etc etc.

    Before some high-and-mighty person sends me mail saying that's dishonest,
I say bull, I'm paying court costs whether I go to court or not.  However,
in this case, I really had planned on taking the ticket to court before being
advised by a lawyer friend that the judge in question would not be fair.

--
    Tim Russell                 Omaha, NE              trussell@unomaha.edu
One of the richest men in the world made his billions selling a toy "operating
system" that is more accurately described as a glorified bootstrap loader.
                                                  -- Phil Karn
Xref: sparky rec.autos.driving:4916 rec.autos:20009