NationStates Jolt Archive

So you're going to crack their skull now?

That wouldn't have any medical complications.



No it really isn't. A bullet is fired at a high speed with the intent to damage or destroy whatever is in its way. That's why it frequently causes something very important the day they discussed surgery in medical school - internal bleeding.

If you're going to use a gun-like tool to implant it deep inside a person and hard to get to with tweezers, a large number of them (perhaps not the majority, but a large minority) will die within hours of you doing so. Why? Because blood loss has a tendency to do that, especially in babies (when you're suggesting doing it).

So, I'm sorry. You've got 3 choices:

1) Pay Joe Smuckall to put it under the skin. Another Joe Smuckall can get it out like a sliver without too much difficulty and just a basic medical degree. It's outpatient surgery, really.

2) Hire a very expensive surgeon who can place it in a spot almost impossible to reach. This will cost lots of $$$.

3) Hire Joe Smuckall to shoot the victims with the implant. A vast number of them die within hours of the implantation "surgery". Bonus points for bribing/threatening the coroner into not telling what caused the death.

It's funny that your unequivocal two choices became three choices when I pointed out that two choices just wasn't realistic.

You don't have to 'crack' a babies skull to implant something in their head.

A hypdermic device that had a regulated depth would enable implantation, even by amateurs. Binding the RFID in the same sort of mesh they use for hernia surgery would give you a bug that the body would automatically attempt to heal into place. It'd arguably be more effective even than stapling.

It's funny that your unequivocal two choices became three choices when I pointed out that two choices just wasn't realistic.

Well, yes, I hadn't considered shooting newborn babies. I guess that makes me not have much vision.

You don't have to 'crack' a babies skull to implant something in their head.

A hypdermic device that had a regulated depth would enable implantation, even by amateurs. Binding the RFID in the same sort of mesh they use for hernia surgery would give you a bug that the body would automatically attempt to heal into place. It'd arguably be more effective even than stapling.

Where are you planning on inserting this so that:

A) Doesn't cause any substantial bleeding to be worried about.
B) Won't be noticed.
C) Will have nothing that will be damaged by implantation in a newborn baby.

You can believe a HUGE increase in the CIAs budget won't raise eyebrows, but since the increase would have to be approved as part of the federal budget, it would show up on reports. Especially if it meant an increase in taxes.


The CIA's budget, pre-9/11 (in fact, in 1997, the first time they were forced to reveal it) was 27 BILLION dollars.

A decade on, a war on terror, wars on two fronts.. I haven't even seen a CIA budget this year, but I'd bet it's substantially more than the pre 9/11 levels.


The hospital needs permission from the parents to do a biopsy on a child.

I didn't say DO a biopsy, I said SAY 'biopsy'. Most people would just accept that.



Those programs were operated through third party players, just as you suggested happen with this program. And listening to someone's international phone call is significantly different than forcing non-essential medical procedures on everyone without their consent or knowledge.


The difference is - I'm saying that the 'third party players' would be doing what they do anyway - they wouldn't be 'in on it'. The RFID's would be shipped. The drugs would be shipped. The only people that need to be 'in on it' are the people you place in the hospitals.


Metal detectors aren't biometric devices. Therefore, biometric security isn't in court buildings, airports, schools, etc.


I didn't say metal detectors were biometric devices. But photo ID is a biometric system.


Your attitude towards the idea make you sound optimistic about it.


No, it doesn't. You confuse my acceptance that something like this WILL happen, and my belief that the END RESULT would be a good thing... with a feeling, either way, about the means to the end.


BTW, I really hate responding this way, splitting each post into separate quotes. It's a pain in the ass.

You must hate conversations too... that whole 'waiting for them to stop talking before you reply, and then they talk back' thing... that's got to be a pain.

Well, yes, I hadn't considered shooting newborn babies. I guess that makes me not have much vision.


It's good that you will admit weaknesses.


Where are you planning on inserting this so that:

A) Doesn't cause any substantial bleeding to be worried about.
B) Won't be noticed.
C) Will have nothing that will be damaged by implantation in a newborn baby.

I'm not 'planning on inserting' anything, anywhere.

I've suggested that a small RFID could be cathetered through the skull. Bleeding should be minimal, most people are unaware of what is happening inside the skull, and there's no reason why damage should follow.

I'm not 'planning on inserting' anything, anywhere.

I've suggested that a small RFID could be cathetered through the skull. Bleeding should be minimal, most people are unaware of what is happening inside the skull, and there's no reason why damage should follow.

So now we have a small surgical scar on the baby's head, and the baby's hair would have to be shaved (if he was born with hair) in order to put it in.

Also:

RFID =/= GPS with sedative device.

Stick with one argument or admit defeat instead of trying to weasel your way out of the impracticalities of the argument you chose.

It's funny that your unequivocal two choices became three choices when I pointed out that two choices just wasn't realistic.

You don't have to 'crack' a babies skull to implant something in their head.

A hypdermic device that had a regulated depth would enable implantation, even by amateurs. Binding the RFID in the same sort of mesh they use for hernia surgery would give you a bug that the body would automatically attempt to heal into place. It'd arguably be more effective even than stapling.

How do you implant something through a baby's skull without damaging the brain? How do you account for different skull thickness between different newborns, without a specialist? How do you bind the RFID device to mesh, and then inject it through a needle?

So now we have a small surgical scar on the baby's head, and the baby's hair would have to be shaved (if he was born with hair) in order to put it in.

Also:

RFID =/= GPS with sedative device.

Stick with one argument or admit defeat instead of trying to weasel your way out of the impracticalities of the argument you chose.

Why would hair have to be shaved to use a hypodermic?

'Admit defeat'... on what? I've argued several different things. I've talked about implants, surgeries... even people inserting their own implants, so to speak. I've talked about how the systems could work, and what technologies could be used.

You try to finesse down until you think you have an argument for me to make that you can handle... and then you're all like 'ha, you lose'... apparently unaware that the thought experiment we're engaging in is half me accommodating you. If 'I lose', so did you.

How do you implant something through a baby's skull without damaging the brain?


Don't inject it into the brain?


How do you account for different skull thickness between different newborns, without a specialist?


Allow a margin of error, and follow an inversion of the 'stop when you feel resistance' mantra.


How do you bind the RFID device to mesh, and then inject it through a needle?

You don't. Which is why I didn't suggest a needle.

Why would hair have to be shaved to use a hypodermic?

Wait, I thought we were using a catheter?

In case you're confused, this is a catheter:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/graykon/Products/Incontinence/nephrosomy_catheter_b_s.jpg

'Admit defeat'... on what? I've argued several different things. I've talked about implants, surgeries... even people inserting their own implants, so to speak. I've talked about how the systems could work, and what technologies could be used.

Yes, every time someone shows what a ridiculous argument you're making, you change arguments without admitting it. You just seem to think that you can weasel and weasel until everyone loses interest. Well, I have no life.

An RFID chip would do absolutely nothing to curb crime, so there's no point.

A gps/sedative would be too hazardous/expensive to implant in a newborn.

Where does that leave us?

You try to finesse down until you think you have an argument for me to make that you can handle... and then you're all like 'ha, you lose'... apparently unaware that the thought experiment we're engaging in is half me accommodating you. If 'I lose', so did you.

I sure did. I've lost all this time I could be debating something intellectual, intelligent, and factually based.

Wait, I thought we were using a catheter?

In case you're confused, this is a catheter:


But not the kind of a hypodermic catheter I mentioned earlier. (There IS a needle in the technology too, but it is retractable. On initial insertion, the needle blocks the barrel of the catheter, which then becomes a conduit when the needle is retracted from the barrel.


An RFID chip would do absolutely nothing to curb crime, so there's no point.


Actually, RFID on everyone would make you immediately able to find out who was at a crime scene, in real time, with no potential for error. In that particular case, it wouldn't stop the criminal acting, but it would make a massive difference to the trial procedure.


A gps/sedative would be too hazardous/expensive to implant in a newborn.


So you keep saying, but only if you accept the parameters you claim would be necessary.


I sure did. I've lost all this time I could be debating something intellectual, intelligent, and factually based.

Mm.

The CIA's budget, pre-9/11 (in fact, in 1997, the first time they were forced to reveal it) was 27 BILLION dollars.

A decade on, a war on terror, wars on two fronts.. I haven't even seen a CIA budget this year, but I'd bet it's substantially more than the pre 9/11 levels.



I didn't say DO a biopsy, I said SAY 'biopsy'. Most people would just accept that.




The difference is - I'm saying that the 'third party players' would be doing what they do anyway - they wouldn't be 'in on it'. The RFID's would be shipped. The drugs would be shipped. The only people that need to be 'in on it' are the people you place in the hospitals.



I didn't say metal detectors were biometric devices. But photo ID is a biometric system.



No, it doesn't. You confuse my acceptance that something like this WILL happen, and my belief that the END RESULT would be a good thing... with a feeling, either way, about the means to the end.



You must hate conversations too... that whole 'waiting for them to stop talking before you reply, and then they talk back' thing... that's got to be a pain.

The increase would still be in the budget report, which means people will notice.

You don't have kids, do you? My parents would have freaked if, when we were kids, my sisters or I ever were to return home from a doctor's appointment with an unauthorized surgical scar. My older sister has 4 kids, and she and my brother in law would be livid if their kids were subjected to surgery without their authorization. Most parents would be the same way.

Who would be running this project? Who would be authorizing the production of these implants, and authorizing the forced implantation of these chips? The third parties would be the weak link in keeping this secret, which is the medical personnel approached to do these implantations (I can't see everyone of them saying yes).

A photo ID will not verify if someone has a GPS implant. In order to determine if someone has a GPS implant in them, you'd need a technological device that can detect the implant. That will cost money, therefore schools, airports, courthouses, etc do not currently have the appropriate biometric devices.

If you're not optimistic about the means, why are you so vehemently defending the feasibility of this? Every concern people have brought up, you've ignored or made snide comments about, claiming that you know better than us.

I hate interrupting people in real life (and hate being interrupted), so when they're talking, I wait until they finish. On the internet, splitting each post into separate quotes is IMO, a pain in the ass, as you have to chop up the post you're quoting.

Actually, RFID on everyone would make you immediately able to find out who was at a crime scene, in real time, with no potential for error. In that particular case, it wouldn't stop the criminal acting, but it would make a massive difference to the trial procedure.

I take it you don't know what an RFID is. It's an extremely short range device that, when queried, responds with the data it's been preprogrammed to respond. It can't contain GPS. It can't do much of anything except hold a very small amount of data - a social security number (or identifying number), name, maybe a little medical data or parents or something, but that's about it.

If they escape the crime scene before police show up, RFID gives you nothing.

So you keep saying, but only if you accept the parameters of physics and medicine that currently exist.

Fixed.

It's good that you will admit weaknesses.



I'm not 'planning on inserting' anything, anywhere.

I've suggested that a small RFID could be cathetered through the skull. Bleeding should be minimal, most people are unaware of what is happening inside the skull, and there's no reason why damage should follow.

Except that once the RFID is in between the skull and the brain, how do you control where it goes? I can't imagine that an RFID implant floating around the brain cavity would be a good thing.

Don't inject it into the brain?



Allow a margin of error, and follow an inversion of the 'stop when you feel resistance' mantra.



You don't. Which is why I didn't suggest a needle.

No shit! Wow, why didn't I think of that? Seriously, if you're injecting it into the skull, you run the risk of hitting what's behind the skull (AKA the brain).

A margin of error? Thank god you'll never be working on on any child of mine.

If you don't use a needle to implant an RFID bound in mesh, you'll need to perform a surgical procedure to implant it. That means a noticeable scar that will get the parents asking questions.

I outline the idea and YOU decided what YOU thought I meant, and what YOU thought would be necessary.


If you say you want to fly, and then say you'll do it without engines, wings, or even a plain old hot air balloon, by all means. Go ahead. I'll be watching you jump off that cliff.

That's the only rebuttal you need.


And there's where you shot yourself in the foot.


Hah! Only in your imagination. You see, the point has never been about stopping the government from doing it if they wanted to, technological lack aside. The point has been how it's impossible to keep secret, much less stop people from just ripping out the implants the moment they find out about it.

But please, go ahead. Keep wearing your blinkers.


You could actually use the USP 6958054 Catheter Device to insert a small RFID.

Catheters are only designed to insert and extract liquids in the system. They are also only meant to be inserted via cavities and ducts, which do not lead to any location suitable for long term storage of hard implants since that would lead to medical complications. No, you won't be able to implant it in the brain or heart or anywhere like that with a catheter without cutting open the patient either.

FAIL!


Your lack of knowledge of existing technology is hardly a mark against anything I might say.

Your lack of knowledge of how existing technology works, much less surgery, proves your inability to comprehend their limitations.


Where GPS can't track? Where are you, under a mountain?


GPS works by receiving radio signals from a satellite. Radio signals are often blocked by any number of natural and man made interferences. Space weather, like solar flares, elevators, some types of cars, power stations, anything that acts as a faraday cage.


No, the fact that you keep throwing out tiny little molehills, and imagining them to be mountains, says nothing to whether or not I've 'thought it through'.

Hah! Tiny molehills? Riiiight, you mean like those missing heat shield tiles on the shuttle Columbia was just a tiny molehill in the overall planning. Or maybe that

People like you make stupid plans that are full of holes and then flog them as fully workable with sunshine and roses for all.

Like Dick Cheney's Iraq invasion plan.


I'll admit, it's not a plan, it's just a concept, so there are still areas that allow for fine tuning, but you haven't rpesented anything that really contests the concept.

I've presented plenty. So has everyone else here. You're just pulling out the Deus Ex Machina excuse every time to cover your ass.


I honestly don't care what YOU would 'trust me to organize'. (Not that I'd be organizing it, anyway - me not being the government).

Not just me. No one would trust you. You've demonstrated a singularly appalling lack of foresight and planning ability, much less formulate a workable concept.

The increase would still be in the budget report, which means people will notice.


That the CIA budget increased by hald a billion dollars?

And? That's not exactly a red flag moment.


You don't have kids, do you?


3


Who would be running this project? Who would be authorizing the production of these implants, and authorizing the forced implantation of these chips? The third parties would be the weak link in keeping this secret, which is the medical personnel approached to do these implantations (I can't see everyone of them saying yes).


I assume that the person doing these things would be someone at presidential level, or below preseidential level working on specific orders. I aslo assume that the person would probably be protected by some kind of assurance of anonymity, so I can't tell you who it would be.


A photo ID will not verify if someone has a GPS implant. In order to determine if someone has a GPS implant in them, you'd need a technological device that can detect the implant. That will cost money, therefore schools, airports, courthouses, etc do not currently have the appropriate biometric devices.


There'a a whole lot of stirring arguments here.

Photo ID was presented as being biometric data that a lot of people carry around with them - the argument was never made that photo ID will tell you if someone is chipped. (Although, of course, a smart card with a chip IN it, woul self-answer that question).


If you're not optimistic about the means, why are you so vehemently defending the feasibility of this?


I think it's being dismissed as though it were flawed, based on not liking it.


Every concern people have brought up, you've ignored or made snide comments about, claiming that you know better than us.


Most of the comments made have been answered directly. Where you might think I've been snide... maybe you're talking about responses to arguments that equate to 'secret monitoring could never happen'...


I hate interrupting people in real life (and hate being interrupted), so when they're talking, I wait until they finish. On the internet, splitting each post into separate quotes is IMO, a pain in the ass, as you have to chop up the post you're quoting.

Post in chunks then, I'm good either way.

If you say you want to fly, and then say you'll do it without engines, wings, or even a plain old hot air balloon, by all means. Go ahead. I'll be watching you jump off that cliff.


And thus, the hang-glider is invented.

That's your problem. I say "hey, how about flying", and you say -"can't work - the horses don't have wings". And I say... "what horses"?


Catheters are only designed to insert and extract liquids in the system. They are also only meant to be inserted via cavities and ducts, which do not lead to any location suitable for long term storage of hard implants since that would lead to medical complications. No, you won't be able to implant it in the brain or heart or anywhere like that with a catheter without cutting open the patient either.


The specific device I suggested is a hypodermic catheter, that operates like a hypodermic needle, but retraction of the needle from the barrel enables it to feed something through the channel.


People like you make stupid plans that are full of holes and then flog them as fully workable with sunshine and roses for all.

Like Dick Cheney's Iraq invasion plan.


No, I presented the sunshine and roses, and talked about a concept. And talked about possibilities towards that concept.

You're acting like I dropped you a detailed plan and you shot wholes in it, but that just never happened.


Not just me. No one would trust you. You've demonstrated a singularly appalling lack of foresight and planning ability, much less formulate a workable concept.

No one would trust someone with such a lack of imagination, to do anything more than push paper.

And thus, the hang-glider is invented.


A hang glider is a wing with a handgrip to begin with. You said you didn't want wings. So you're still flapping your arms.


The specific device I suggested is a hypodermic catheter, that operates like a hypodermic needle, but retraction of the needle from the barrel enables it to feed something through the channel.

That something being a liquid which would disperse through the system. Not a damned GPS tracker chip that would dislodge itself after a hard jog and cause all sorts of nasty shit by tumbling around if you stuck it deep.


No, I presented the sunshine and roses, and talked about a concept. And talked about possibilities towards that concept.

See, that's your problem. You talk sunshine, roses, and a concept that cannot work because it relies on a premise of things never going balls up and technology that does things no one has ever made it capable of doing.


No one would trust someone with such a lack of imagination, to do anything more than push paper.

Pushing paper is far more productive than people who's sole qualification is building castles in the sky and insisting that it's workable without providing any groundwork to even show that it can be.

The latter are generally unemployed because no one trusts them at all.

Oh, and I see you ran away from all the technical problems I outlined. Again. Going to invent some new excuses maybe?

A hang glider is a wing with a handgrip to begin with. You said you didn't want wings. So you're still flapping your arms.


A hang glider is a kite with a handgrip. I didn't say anything about kites.

Actually, I didn't say anything about wings, either - that was one of your assumptions about what you THOUGHT I mean.

(For the sake of keeping the analogy, relevant, you know).


That something being a...


...an admission that for all your posturing just a moment ago, you were wrong - because I wasn't talking about the sort of 'catheter' you assumed I was.


See, that's your problem. You talk sunshine, roses, and a concept that cannot work because it relies on a premise of things never going balls up and technology that does things no one has ever made it capable of doing.


It doesn't rely on that premise, at all. I've talked about possible fiascoes, and admitted they could happen. I've conceded short lifespans for technology, and so on and so on. It would work even WITH things ballsing up.


Pushing paper is far more productive than people who's sole qualification


Sole qualifiaction? We're about to enter fantasy assumption land, again?


...is building castles in the sky and insisting that it's workable without providing any groundwork to even show that it can be.

The latter are generally unemployed because no one trusts them at all.

I think that's a really weak ad hominem, but I can't be sure.

Anyway, those who see possibilities, or predict things that will come, are often derided, just as you are doing right now. Later, some of them will be called visionaries.

By the way I find it funny you tell him he has an ad hominen when the entire assumption-talk you "attack" him with is:a really weak ad hominem

I've conceded short lifespans for technology, and so on and so on.


Which you preceded to cover up with even stupider ideas and more technology that doesn't exist, much less do the things you want it to do, all the while insisting on that oh so vital secrecy that would prevent everyone connected to the fiasco from being lynched on general principles. That's the entire basis of your argument in this thread, when you're not using that "That's what you assume." projection, that is.

That the CIA budget increased by hald a billion dollars?

And? That's not exactly a red flag moment.



3



I assume that the person doing these things would be someone at presidential level, or below preseidential level working on specific orders. I aslo assume that the person would probably be protected by some kind of assurance of anonymity, so I can't tell you who it would be.



There'a a whole lot of stirring arguments here.

Photo ID was presented as being biometric data that a lot of people carry around with them - the argument was never made that photo ID will tell you if someone is chipped. (Although, of course, a smart card with a chip IN it, woul self-answer that question).



I think it's being dismissed as though it were flawed, based on not liking it.



Most of the comments made have been answered directly. Where you might think I've been snide... maybe you're talking about responses to arguments that equate to 'secret monitoring could never happen'...



Post in chunks then, I'm good either way.

It'd take more than a half billion to outfit enough implants, sensors, and labor to work. The labor costs for the people building the implants, implanting them in people, building the sensors, installing the sensors, and monitoring the signals will push the amount to more than can be hid easily in a budget. As well, all those people involved are more chances for the project to be leaked.

Sure you do. :rolleyes:

One person would not be able to pull this off. There's too much logistics for one person.

Biometric data from a photo ID is all well and good, but it has NOTHING to do with the GPS implants we're talking about. Not all photo IDs are RFID equipped, and RFID equipped photo IDs can be disabled easily, turning it into a regular ID.

GPS implanting is being dismissed because your arguments and the concept ARE flawed. You're doing nothing to address the concerns and problems we're mentioning, and the technology isn't currently capable of supporting it.

Your "answers" to our concerns involve your opinion that parents are stupid and gullible, flip-flopping on insertion method (when injection is mentioned, you bring up surgery, and vise versa), insertion location (you've suggested the heart, the skull, the testes/ovaries, etc), and assuming that you can not only implant people without their knowledge, but KEEP secretly implanting new GPS trackers into them once the old ones fail.

I'm done for the night, as I have to work in the morning. If no realistic arguments for this concept/technology materialize, I may be done with this subject all together.

Which you preceded to cover up with even stupider ideas and more technology that doesn't exist, much less do the things you want it to do, all the while insisting on that oh so vital secrecy that would prevent everyone connected to the fiasco from being lynched on general principles. That's the entire basis of your argument in this thread, when you're not using that "That's what you assume." projection, that is.

Again with the secrecy thing. It doesn't have to be all that secret, just deniable for a while, controllable for a bit longer, and running unstopped for a little more than that.

So: "...all the while insisting on that oh so vital secrecy...", I don't know who you think you're kidding, since you and I both know it's not me.

"That's what you assume" isn't a projection. You keep making up stuff that's missing from my argument (according to you)... but that is (in reality) actually just missing from a list of things YOU have decided should exist.

It'd take more than a half billion to outfit enough implants, sensors, and labor to work.


I bow to your superior 'picking numbers out of nowhere' skills.


The labor costs for the people building the implants, implanting them in people, building the sensors, installing the sensors, and monitoring the signals will push the amount to more than can be hid easily in a budget.


The cost of making implants, for example is negligible, because you'd buy the product from someone who is already making them.

If the cost came up too great, you'd plit it over several budgets.


Sure you do. :rolleyes:


Eh?


Biometric data from a photo ID is all well and good, but it has NOTHING to do with the GPS implants we're talking about.


Okay. You clearly don't remember how the ID cards entered the conversation, so you're just going to muddle the contexts. Fine.


Your "answers" to our concerns involve your opinion that parents are stupid and gullible, flip-flopping on insertion method (when injection is mentioned, you bring up surgery, and vise versa),


I suggested several implantation technologies.

That's not flip-flopping, that's 'alternatives'.

You're making a nonsensical point - it's be like going into Baskin Robbins and bitching that 31 flavors was flip-flopping, and why don't they just make up their minds.


...insertion location (you've suggested the heart, the skull, the testes/ovaries, etc),


Yes. Different possible locations. This is not any form of contradiction.


...and assuming that you can not only implant people without their knowledge,


You can pretty safely implant babies without their knowledge.


...but KEEP secretly implanting new GPS trackers into them once the old ones fail.


And this.. I didn't say.

...but KEEP secretly implanting new GPS trackers into them once the old ones fail.

And this.. I didn't say.


I didn't fail to address that, at all.

I said they'd wear out, and be replaced.


Liar.

I bow to your superior 'picking numbers out of nowhere' skills.



The cost of making implants, for example is negligible, because you'd buy the product from someone who is already making them.

If the cost came up too great, you'd plit it over several budgets.



Eh?



Okay. You clearly don't remember how the ID cards entered the conversation, so you're just going to muddle the contexts. Fine.



I suggested several implantation technologies.

That's not flip-flopping, that's 'alternatives'.

You're making a nonsensical point - it's be like going into Baskin Robbins and bitching that 31 flavors was flip-flopping, and why don't they just make up their minds.



Yes. Different possible locations. This is not any form of contradiction.



You can pretty safely implant babies without their knowledge.



And this.. I didn't say.

A GPS receiver costs, at minimum (according to Google shopping), $41. You'd need to miniaturize it, so it will need a redesign. Then, add in the cost associated with placing a transmitter (also miniaturized) powerful enough to transmit to a monitoring facility. Then add in the cost of the injection device (again, making sure it's miniaturized) and sedative. Let's be generous (to your side of the argument), and say you can have the module ready to go in a size capable of insertion into the human body, for $100 per unit (including the cost of labor). The cost of the units by itself would be $431,500,000 for the first year (according to several newspapers, there were 4,315,000 babies born in 2007). Then, you have to have the monitoring facility designed and built. That will be expensive, as it will have to monitor an ever increasing number of people (but I won't figure the cost of the monitoring systems in right now, I'm just doing yearly costs). Then there's the labor for the staff monitoring the GPS implants. How many people do you think we'll need for the first year (assuming we use the figure for 2007 births as an average). Maybe 100 implants per person? So that's 43,150 people monitoring the implants. Paying the federal minimum wage to these people, ($7.25/hr by July 2009, which will occur before this program could possibly take effect), * 40 hours a week * 50 weeks a year, will cost $14,500 per person per year. Multiply that by the number of monitoring people we figured on before, and we get $625,675,000. You'll need 3 shifts of monitoring people, so it'll have to be tripled (which brings that total to $1,877,025,000). So far, we're looking at 2,308,525,000 for the implants and monitoring labor. Now we get to the people that will actually be implanting them. A neurosurgeon makes a median hourly rate (according to this (http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=250757) site) of $88.80/hr. If this surgery only takes an hour to cut an infant's skull open, insert the device, and sew up the infant, you're talking about 4,315,000 hours to do every infant born in the US in a year. You'll also need an anesthesiologist, which is an average of $80.20/hr. So, we're looking at another $383,172,000 for the neurosurgeons, and another $346,063,000 for the anesthesiologist. Now, the total is $3,037,760,000. I haven't gone into the monitoring building or labor costs of the "Collection Squad" you mentioned, and I'm already up over $3 billion. How do you like my "picking numbers out of nowhere" skills now?

Please point to me ANY suppliers of micro GPS implants. I'll give you bonus points if it already comes with some sort of drug injection device. BTW, splitting the cost between several budgets will be an accounting nightmare for the agencies involved. Yet another chance for questions, both because more people are involved, and because the money would have to be accounted for SOMEWHERE.

I remember EXACTLY how the ID cards came into the conversation (I mentioned them). How exactly do you see them being used? They don't do anything to verify if someone has a working implant or not.

It seems that the location or method you talk about changes once someone challenges the method or location.

You said, "A hypdermic device that had a regulated depth would enable implantation, even by amateurs. Binding the RFID in the same sort of mesh they use for hernia surgery would give you a bug that the body would automatically attempt to heal into place. It'd arguably be more effective even than stapling". I asked, "How do you implant something through a baby's skull without damaging the brain? How do you account for different skull thickness between different newborns, without a specialist? How do you bind the RFID device to mesh, and then inject it through a needle?". You responded with, "You don't. Which is why I didn't suggest a needle". I responded with, "If you don't use a needle to implant an RFID bound in mesh, you'll need to perform a surgical procedure to implant it. That means a noticeable scar that will get the parents asking questions". Basically, you talk about using a hypodermic device to implant the device bound in mesh, but when someone asks how you intend to do that when it's bound in mesh, you flip flop, and say you weren't talking about injecting it.

I'm not buying your claim that you have kids.

A doctor CAN pretty safely implant babies without their knowledge, but once the parents see the surgical scar or the needle mark and lump, questions will be asked. And your assertion that the parents will be gullible enough to believe, and be ok with, a doctor's claim that it was an unauthorized biopsy is not believable.

Non Aligned States took care of the last one for me.

Liar.

Your newfound lack of ability to read is not my problem.


Wear out, and be replaced =/= keep secretly implanting new trackers.

A GPS receiver costs, at minimum (according to Google shopping), $41.


Sure. The government always pays retail, and doesn't buy enough units to get an appreciable economy of scale.


You'd need to miniaturize it, so it will need a redesign. Then, add in the cost associated with placing a transmitter (also miniaturized) powerful enough to transmit to a monitoring facility. Then add in the cost of the injection device (again, making sure it's miniaturized) and sedative. Let's be generous (to your side of the argument), and say you can have the module ready to go in a size capable of insertion into the human body, for $100 per unit (including the cost of labor).


Sure, you're making the numbers up, you can call it whatever you like.


The cost of the units by itself would be $431,500,000 for the first year (according to several newspapers, there were 4,315,000 babies born in 2007). Then, you have to have the monitoring facility designed and built. That will be expensive, as it will have to monitor an ever increasing number of people (but I won't figure the cost of the monitoring systems in right now, I'm just doing yearly costs). Then there's the labor for the staff monitoring the GPS implants. How many people do you think we'll need for the first year (assuming we use the figure for 2007 births as an average). Maybe 100 implants per person? So that's 43,150 people monitoring the implants. Paying the federal minimum wage to these people, ($7.25/hr by July 2009, which will occur before this program could possibly take effect), * 40 hours a week * 50 weeks a year, will cost $14,500 per person per year. Multiply that by the number of monitoring people we figured on before, and we get $625,675,000. You'll need 3 shifts of monitoring people, so it'll have to be tripled (which brings that total to $1,877,025,000). So far, we're looking at 2,308,525,000 for the implants and monitoring labor.


Okay, even taking your numbers, it's only 3 billion.


Now we get to the people that will actually be implanting them. A neurosurgeon...


Is not needed because...


If this surgery only takes an hour to cut an infant's skull open, insert the device, and sew up the infant,


...is not needed.


How do you like my "picking numbers out of nowhere" skills now?


I think that's something you're good at.


Please point to me ANY suppliers of micro GPS implants. I'll give you bonus points if it already comes with some sort of drug injection device. BTW, splitting the cost between several budgets will be an accounting nightmare for the agencies involved.


You actually split the budget here, didn't you notice? You did it as a yearly cost, rather than an overall budget for the project.


You said, "A hypdermic device that had a regulated depth would enable implantation, even by amateurs. Binding the RFID in the same sort of mesh they use for hernia surgery would give you a bug that the body would automatically attempt to heal into place. It'd arguably be more effective even than stapling". I asked, "How do you implant something through a baby's skull without damaging the brain? How do you account for different skull thickness between different newborns, without a specialist? How do you bind the RFID device to mesh, and then inject it through a needle?". You responded with, "You don't. Which is why I didn't suggest a needle". I responded with, "If you don't use a needle to implant an RFID bound in mesh, you'll need to perform a surgical procedure to implant it. That means a noticeable scar that will get the parents asking questions". Basically, you talk about using a hypodermic device to implant the device bound in mesh, but when someone asks how you intend to do that when it's bound in mesh, you flip flop, and say you weren't talking about injecting it.


Hypodermic device =/= a needle.


I'm not buying your claim that you have kids.


I don't care. You brought it up, and I pointed out you're wrong, But I honestly have no care, at all, what you think about that information.


A doctor CAN pretty safely implant babies without their knowledge, but once the parents see the surgical scar or the needle mark and lump, questions will be asked. And your assertion that the parents will be gullible enough to believe, and be ok with, a doctor's claim that it was an unauthorized biopsy is not believable.


People are gullible and stupid. They just are.

Your newfound lack of ability to read is not my problem.


Wear out, and be replaced =/= keep secretly implanting new trackers.

Your lack of ability to comprehend basic logic, much less your own words, explains your persistence on this board with your brand of nonsense.

Or perhaps you are simply a compulsive liar. I have reason to suspect you are the latter, and predict that you will go on to make up even more lies in order to somehow justify your nonsensical position while making snide remarks about the non-existent superiority of your position.

Your newfound lack of ability to read is not my problem.


Wear out, and be replaced =/= keep secretly implanting new trackers.

How exactly would you replace a worn out, secretly implanted GPS device, without the person finding out about either device?

How exactly would you replace a worn out, secretly implanted GPS device, without the person finding out about either device?

Sneak into their homes while they're asleep watch them for a few seconds while breathing heavily then secretly and silently implant a probe into the base of their skull(after turning them over if they don't sleep on their stomachs) all the while wearing a Dick Cheney mask? If they wake up for some reason yelling boo gets you bonus points.

Sure. The government always pays retail, and doesn't buy enough units to get an appreciable economy of scale.



Sure, you're making the numbers up, you can call it whatever you like.



Okay, even taking your numbers, it's only 3 billion.



Is not needed because...



...is not needed.



I think that's something you're good at.



You actually split the budget here, didn't you notice? You did it as a yearly cost, rather than an overall budget for the project.



Hypodermic device =/= a needle.



I don't care. You brought it up, and I pointed out you're wrong, But I honestly have no care, at all, what you think about that information.



People are gullible and stupid. They just are.

You're right. Usually, the government pays MORE than retail.

My numbers are based on facts. The cost of the units HAS TO take into account the time spent designing the electronics, setting up fixtures and tooling, assembly, and testing. If you think my numbers are wrong, show me where I went wrong.

Only 3 billion? I don't know about you, but to a lot of people, that's a hell of a lot of money. And on a line budget, it isn't a negligible amount. Remember, it's going to go up every year, as with more implants, more people are going to be needed every year.

Sure, a neurologist and an anesthesiologist aren't needed, if you have no concern whether the newborns die. Of course, if you screw up, you'll have to explain to the parents why their newborn died during an unauthorized surgery.

Just as ignoring or marginalizing anything you disagree with is something you're good at.

I didn't do an overall budget because every year, you'll need more people to monitor the implant, which means the amount of the budget will go up (labor costs are a bitch, aren't they?).

Actually, hypodermic device does = a needle.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypodermic%5B1%5D

You're telling me that a parent wouldn't think twice about one of their new children coming home with a strange surgical scar? They would believe a doctor's claim, and wouldn't investigate, and find out the why, when, where, etc of the unauthorized medical procedure? Are you saying you wouldn't have a problem with someone performing an unauthorized procedure on one of your kids?

ETA: BTW, I notice that you didn't provide any sources for micro GPS implants that you claim are already being produced. Also, you didn't say how you see photo IDs being used with the GPS tagging scheme.

Sneak into their homes while they're asleep watch them for a few seconds while breathing heavily then secretly and silently implant a probe into the base of their skull(after turning them over if they don't sleep on their stomachs) all the while wearing a Dick Cheney mask? If they wake up for some reason yelling boo gets you bonus points.

Yeah, that'll work until the homeowner hears the intruder break in, and blows the intruder away with a handgun/shotgun/rifle. Or until the alarm goes off, the family dog tears into the intruder, the homeowner calls the cops, etc.

Yeah, that'll work until the homeowner hears the intruder break in, and blows the intruder away with a handgun/shotgun/rifle. Or until the alarm goes off, the family dog tears into the intruder, the homeowner calls the cops, etc.

I think Technonaut is being sarcastic with his evil Santa Claus scenario.

I think Technonaut is being sarcastic with his evil Santa Claus scenario.

Ah.

I'm pretty tired, and it's almost midnight here. That's why I missed it.

Ah.

I'm pretty tired, and it's almost midnight here. That's why I missed it.

Well, consider the logistics of it? How many people are born in a country of what, 300 million? With a birth rate of 14.4 per 1,000 that comes to about 4.3 million babies per year I think. Assuming that the implant batteries come with standardized expiry dates, that's 4.3 million cases of B&E with illicit surgery conducted on people in total secrecy per year.

There aren't enough surgeons in the world to keep up with the demand.

To keep on the OP, my AR15, while nothing spectacular, is in need of a few tools, so I can FINALLY put on the free float tube that I bought probably 2 years ago. I'd also love to get tritium sights for it, but the free float tube is a priority.

Well, consider the logistics of it? How many people are born in a country of what, 300 million? With a birth rate of 14.4 per 1,000 that comes to about 4.3 million babies per year I think. Assuming that the implant batteries come with standardized expiry dates, that's 4.3 million cases of B&E with illicit surgery conducted on people in total secrecy per year.

There aren't enough surgeons in the world to keep up with the demand.

True.

I think it's just best if I go to bed now.

To keep on the OP, my AR15, while nothing spectacular, is in need of a few tools, so I can FINALLY put on the free float tube that I bought probably 2 years ago. I'd also love to get tritium sights for it, but the free float tube is a priority.

but tritium is radioactive!!:rolleyes:

My issued rifle has tritium inserts, it's pretty cool for shooting in low light whne you don't have the option of IR goggles.

but tritium is radioactive!!:rolleyes:

My issued rifle has tritium inserts, it's pretty cool for shooting in low light whne you don't have the option of IR goggles.

One of the ranges I've been to is relatively dark, so I'm hoping the tritium sights help there. Not to mention, they're cool. :D

Your lack of ability to comprehend basic logic, much less your own words, explains your persistence on this board with your brand of nonsense.

Or perhaps you are simply a compulsive liar. I have reason to suspect you are the latter, and predict that you will go on to make up even more lies in order to somehow justify your nonsensical position while making snide remarks about the non-existent superiority of your position.

What a lot of ad hominem venom.

Simply admit that the one thing is not equal to the other - or give a reason why they are (so I can point out your mistake) - and we're all happy - and you don't have to waste my time with this vitriolic tripe.

How exactly would you replace a worn out, secretly implanted GPS device, without the person finding out about either device?

I wouldn't. I didn't say I would.

Read what is actually written, rather than making assumptions about what you thought I might mean.

What a lot of ad hominem venom.

Simply admit that the one thing is not equal to the other - or give a reason why they are (so I can point out your mistake) - and we're all happy - and you don't have to waste my time with this vitriolic tripe.I take it you don't know what an RFID is. It's an extremely short range device that, when queried, responds with the data it's been preprogrammed to respond. It can't contain GPS. It can't do much of anything except hold a very small amount of data - a social security number (or identifying number), name, maybe a little medical data or parents or something, but that's about it.

If they escape the crime scene before police show up, RFID gives you nothing.

I'd still like you to respond to this, which I posted days ago. You found out GPS was too big and too expensive for your little scheme, so you switched to RFID, except, shit, I told you RFID wouldn't help curb crime hardly at all.

However, you just ignored it, or perhaps didn't notice. Do you have any other "ideas" that we can debunk?

Only 3 billion? I don't know about you, but to a lot of people, that's a hell of a lot of money.


A decade ago, the CIA budget alone was almost that. Since then, we've had 9/11, all kinds of intelligence and terror scares, and are engaged in wars on two fronts.


Sure, a neurologist and an anesthesiologist aren't needed...

Right.


Actually, hypodermic device does = a needle.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypodermic%5B1%5D


If I were you, I'd read the source before I posted it.

That source doesn't claim that hypodermic device = a needle.


BTW, I notice that you didn't provide any sources for micro GPS implants that you claim are already being produced.


I claimed that? Micro GPS implants?

Yeah, that'll work until the homeowner hears the intruder break in, and blows the intruder away with a handgun/shotgun/rifle.1 Or until the alarm goes off, the family dog tears into the intruder2, the homeowner calls the cops3, etc.

1. Either do it in the United Kingdom/other places guns are illegal or wear a bullet resistant vest/helmet/armor.

2. Give the dog a short lasting tranquilizer and either cut the power/alarms. Also not everyone has these.

3. Cut the phone lines and bring a cell phone blocker with you or bribe/otherwise distract the cops.

or 4 wait until your target leaves their house for a vacation, figure out which hotel room they're staying in, steal/break in and etc.

Also when did Dick Cheney become Santa?
But yeah I was/am being sarcastic.

I'd still like you to respond to this, which I posted days ago. You found out GPS was too big and too expensive for your little scheme, so you switched to RFID, except, shit, I told you RFID wouldn't help curb crime hardly at all.

However, you just ignored it, or perhaps didn't notice. Do you have any other "ideas" that we can debunk?

I've talked about several ideas. I've talked about implanting FRID through hypodermic catheters, and I've talked about implanting GPS. I didn't say that GPS would, necessarily, be implanted through hypodermic catheters.

I also responded to the 'wouldn't curb crime' thing.

If I miss one of your posts, it could be because I have responded to literally hundreds of posts, on more than one thread, in the last few days - and yours might get missed, or might just not be as important as something else that I do respond to in that same timeframe.

I've talked about several ideas. I've talked about implanting FRID through hypodermic catheters, and I've talked about implanting GPS. I didn't say that GPS would, necessarily, be implanted through hypodermic catheters.

Never said you did, but you have discussed these ideas so far:

1) GPS. Too fucking expensive, hazardous, etc.
2) RFID. Ineffective.
3) <write next stupid idea here>

I also responded to the 'wouldn't curb crime' thing.

No you haven't. This is the last of our conversation:

Actually, RFID on everyone would make you immediately able to find out who was at a crime scene, in real time, with no potential for error. In that particular case, it wouldn't stop the criminal acting, but it would make a massive difference to the trial procedure.I take it you don't know what an RFID is. It's an extremely short range device that, when queried, responds with the data it's been preprogrammed to respond. It can't contain GPS. It can't do much of anything except hold a very small amount of data - a social security number (or identifying number), name, maybe a little medical data or parents or something, but that's about it.

If they escape the crime scene before police show up, RFID gives you nothing

If I miss one of your posts, it could be because I have responded to literally hundreds of posts, on more than one thread, in the last few days - and yours might get missed, or might just not be as important as something else that I do respond to in that same timeframe.

That's why I said you might have forgotten. I'm a generous generalite. I can't say the same for everyone.

1. Either do it in the United Kingdom/other places guns are illegal or wear a bullet resistant vest/helmet/armor.

2. Give the dog a short lasting tranquilizer and either cut the power/alarms. Also not everyone has these.

3. Cut the phone lines and bring a cell phone blocker with you or bribe/otherwise distract the cops.

or 4 wait until your target leaves their house for a vacation, figure out which hotel room they're staying in, steal/break in and etc.

Also when did Dick Cheney become Santa?
But yeah I was/am being sarcastic.

Why not just nuke them from orbit? It's the only way to be sure. :p

Why not just nuke them from orbit? It's the only way to be sure.
Nah a person can get a decent SDI defense now a days for a bargain price and you only get one nuke. And anyone thats not already dead gets all pissy at you and you have a multi front war in two seconds flat which will really ruin ones day...

A decade ago, the CIA budget alone was almost that. Since then, we've had 9/11, all kinds of intelligence and terror scares, and are engaged in wars on two fronts.



Right.



If I were you, I'd read the source before I posted it.

That source doesn't claim that hypodermic device = a needle.



I claimed that? Micro GPS implants?

Even if the CIA budget doubled (from the almost $3 billion you claim a decade ago) over that 10 years due to the reasons you listed, a $3+ Billion increase per year for this program WILL set off red flags.

Try responding to the entirety of my post, instead of intentionally chopping up my post in order to take it out of context. What's going to happen when you don't use specialists to surgically implant these trackers, and newborns start dying because of it? Do you think the parents are just going to go, "Oh shucks. Well, I guess we have to go through the whole maternity process again. I don't hold you or the hospital responsible for killing my infant during an unauthorized surgical procedure"?

Did YOU read that source?

hypodermic

1 : adapted for use in or administered by injection beneath the skin
2 : of or relating to the parts beneath the skin
3 : resembling a hypodermic injection in effect : stimulating

How do you inject something beneath the skin without a needle?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14818279&postcount=274

...The cost of making implants, for example is negligible, because you'd buy the product from someone who is already making them....

We've been talking about a GPS implant that can be covertly implanted into people, that also has the ability to inject a drug into a person. Your statement highlighted above insinuates that they already exist.

For a third time (since you seemed to miss it multiple times), how do you see photo IDs being used with the GPS tagging scheme?

Nah a person can get a decent SDI defense now a days for a bargain price and you only get one nuke. And anyone thats not already dead gets all pissy at you and you have a multi front war in two seconds flat which will really ruin ones day...

Well, instead of a nuke, how about a man portable electronic pulse rifle, with a scope that can allow you to see the skeleton of your target, even through walls, that fires aluminum rounds at hypersonic velocity?

Well, instead of a nuke, how about a man portable electronic pulse rifle, with a scope that can allow you to see the skeleton of your target, even through walls, that fires aluminum rounds at hypersonic velocity?

That's the most realistic idea in this thread yet.

That's the most realistic idea in this thread yet.

I wish the idea about the WA-2000 being reproduced was more realistic. :(

hypodermic

1 : adapted for use in or administered by injection beneath the skin
2 : of or relating to the parts beneath the skin
3 : resembling a hypodermic injection in effect : stimulating

How do you inject something beneath the skin without a needle?


So - it doesn't say 'needle', then?

Just checking.

A few posts back, I discussed how the hypodermic catheter I was talking about is constructed, and how it functions. Inside the barrel of the catheter, is a needle, which is retracted to leave the chennel open.

Thus - the barrel/channel itself, although being applied 'hypodermically', is NOT a needle.


We've been talking about a GPS implant that can be covertly implanted into people, that also has the ability to inject a drug into a person. Your statement highlighted above insinuates that they already exist.


And the 'micro GPS implants' would, then, be your invention, based on that?


For a third time (since you seemed to miss it multiple times), how do you see photo IDs being used with the GPS tagging scheme?

As biometric corroboration?

So - it doesn't say 'needle', then?

Just checking.

A few posts back, I discussed how the hypodermic catheter I was talking about is constructed, and how it functions. Inside the barrel of the catheter, is a needle, which is retracted to leave the chennel open.

Thus - the barrel/channel itself, although being applied 'hypodermically', is NOT a needle.



And the 'micro GPS implants' would, then, be your invention, based on that?



As biometric corroboration?

Your hypodermic catheter HAS A NEEDLE. Therefore, hypodermic device DOES = needle. You lose.

If you're going to be implanting a GPS tracker into the body (especially if you're using a needle or catheter), the GPS tracker would have to be SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than it currently is. Thus the micro part. You claim a GPS implant small enough to be implanted already exists. Therefore, show me WHERE they exist.

Biometric corroboration doesn't help if there's no way to track the person, and a piece of laminated paper or plastic can't verify if someone has a functional GPS implant. Therefore, an ID isn't useful for the purposes of this conversation.

Your hypodermic catheter HAS A NEEDLE. Therefore, hypodermic device DOES = needle. You lose.


A hypodermic device HAS a needle, and thus IS a needle?

That's SERIOUSLY an argument you feel you can make?

Let's check the logic... my leg has a foot, so my leg is a foot. Nope - doesn't work.

You fail so hard, your descendants four generations from now have been doomed to pre-emptive failure by the utter, unequivocal completeness of your failing.


If you're going to be implanting a GPS tracker into the body (especially if you're using a needle or catheter), the GPS tracker would have to be SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than it currently is. Thus the micro part. You claim a GPS implant small enough to be implanted already exists. Therefore, show me WHERE they exist.


The RFID was going in the catheter.

Thus, everything you typed after the word 'catheter' is clearly chasing a red herring.

The RFID was going in the catheter.

Thus, everything you typed after the word 'catheter' is clearly chasing a red herring.

And here we're talking about RFID chips again that won't fucking curb the crime rate at all.

Except, it might curb the crime rate IN courthouses and IN police stations and IN federal buildings, as we'd know everyone who went into that particular building at that time. It wouldn't help anyone else. For your convenience, I have reposted the discussion we were having and the part you have summarily ignored.

I've talked about several ideas. I've talked about implanting FRID through hypodermic catheters, and I've talked about implanting GPS. I didn't say that GPS would, necessarily, be implanted through hypodermic catheters.

Never said you did, but you have discussed these ideas so far:

1) GPS. Too fucking expensive, hazardous, etc.
2) RFID. Ineffective.
3) <write next stupid idea here>

I also responded to the 'wouldn't curb crime' thing.

No you haven't. This is the last of our conversation:

Actually, RFID on everyone would make you immediately able to find out who was at a crime scene, in real time, with no potential for error. In that particular case, it wouldn't stop the criminal acting, but it would make a massive difference to the trial procedure.I take it you don't know what an RFID is. It's an extremely short range device that, when queried, responds with the data it's been preprogrammed to respond. It can't contain GPS. It can't do much of anything except hold a very small amount of data - a social security number (or identifying number), name, maybe a little medical data or parents or something, but that's about it.

If they escape the crime scene before police show up, RFID gives you nothing

If I miss one of your posts, it could be because I have responded to literally hundreds of posts, on more than one thread, in the last few days - and yours might get missed, or might just not be as important as something else that I do respond to in that same timeframe.

That's why I said you might have forgotten. I'm a generous generalite. I can't say the same for everyone.

I prefer a simple crowbar, thank you very much.

A hypodermic device HAS a needle, and thus IS a needle?

That's SERIOUSLY an argument you feel you can make?

Let's check the logic... my leg has a foot, so my leg is a foot. Nope - doesn't work.

You fail so hard, your descendants four generations from now have been doomed to pre-emptive failure by the utter, unequivocal completeness of your failing.



The RFID was going in the catheter.

Thus, everything you typed after the word 'catheter' is clearly chasing a red herring.

Can a catheter function without a needle? No, it can't. How is that failing?

And you have already been told that RFID won't work, as it can only broadcast what's been programmed on it. It does not have a GPS receiver, nor does it have an injection system.

Can a catheter function without a needle? No, it can't. How is that failing?


You said: "How do you bind the RFID device to mesh, and then inject it through a needle?"

I said: "You don't. Which is why I didn't suggest a needle."

You said: "If you don't use a needle to implant an RFID bound in mesh, you'll need to perform a surgical procedure to implant it."

I said: "Hypodermic device =/= a needle."

You said: "Actually, hypodermic device does = a needle."

I said: "That source doesn't claim that hypodermic device = a needle."

You said: "How do you inject something beneath the skin without a needle?"

I said: "A few posts back, I discussed how the hypodermic catheter I was talking about is constructed, and how it functions. Inside the barrel of the catheter, is a needle, which is retracted to leave the chennel open.

Thus - the barrel/channel itself, although being applied 'hypodermically', is NOT a needle."

You said: "Your hypodermic catheter HAS A NEEDLE. Therefore, hypodermic device DOES = needle. You lose."


Your argument started out with telling me I was wrong because my assertion that an RFID would fit through a needle was wrong. I pointed out I hadn't said that.

You changed your argument to there being two choices, a needle or gruesome surgery. I pointed out that there are other hypodermic options.

You changed your argument to the claim that all nypodermic devices are, by definition, needles. I pointed out that simply isn't true.

You then changed your argument to the 'if it has one it is one' idea, which I showed to be illogical.

You are now arguing that the catheter has a needle. Apparently, you're unaware that you're acknowledging my point - the catheter ISN'T a needle, and so an RFID COULD be implanted, via it.

You've wriggled desperately. And, rather then admit that you have been wrong all along (really obviously - look back at that history), you're clinging to arguments like 'if it has a needle, it is a needle'.

I should add a comment at the end, to illustrate some point I feel I need to make - but I'm actually just going to let that history speak for itself.

I wouldn't. I didn't say I would.

Read what is actually written, rather than making assumptions about what you thought I might mean.

I didn't 'forget the part where'... anything.

Why do they have to surgically remove the old one? It wears down, it stops operating. You can just leave it there. And inserting a new one doesn't need a trained surgeon or hospital facilities, so the cost is pennies on the product.

You could allot another - say - $15 million to cover the costs of labor.

How will you implant a new sensor in someone without their knowledge. If a doctor were to tell me that I had a secretly implanted GPS tracking device in me that stopped working, and that they wanted to implant a new one in it so the government could keep tracking me 24/7, I'd tell them to go to hell (if I was feeling nice, otherwise I'd use stronger language). So the only way they'd be able to implant me with a new GPS tracking device would be to do it without my knowledge. I'd be willing to put money down on a LOT of people feeling the same way.

How will you implant a new sensor in someone without their knowledge.

I wouldn't. Every time the 'keep it secret, keep it safe' meme has raised it's head, I've said I'm not trying to keep it secret - certainly, not in any protracted sense.

Maybe it needs to be plausibly deniable while it's being first introduced... maybe. But people would come to accept it rapidly, and in a short space of time, they'd allow the government to mandate it - indeed, they'd pay for it, and the government would charge them fines.. maybe even jail time... if THEY let it lapse.

What a lot of ad hominem venom.

Simply admit that the one thing is not equal to the other - or give a reason why they are (so I can point out your mistake) - and we're all happy - and you don't have to waste my time with this vitriolic tripe.

First you said you'd implement it on a wide scale. Then when we told you that no one would accept it, and that they'd remove it the moment they could, you said you'd do it on babies. Then when we said that few, if any, parents would be stupid enough to never wonder why their baby has a shaved head and a surgical scar on their scalp, you invented some cockamamie rubbish about them being mindless drones who'd eat up any old story from the doctor about performing unauthorized surgery on their child. And then when Gun Manufacturers said that he'd be suspicious, you de facto declared yourself master of his brain and said "no you won't".

All of your excuses were to keep the entire thing secret enough for at least one generation after which, you pronounced that the entire populace would love it.

Your entire premise is built on the idea that people are utterly trusting of the government and would never question them or doctors who perform unauthorized surgery on their children. Anyone who would even be suspicious of such things, like those of us who have objected, you pretend don't exist, or you simply dismiss it by de facto claiming to know us better than ourselves.

Not one of it my statements on your character is untrue, not when it fits you like a glove.

First you said you'd implement it on a wide scale.


This started off well - it started off how the other post should have been.

It looked like it was going to actually deal with arguments.


Your entire premise is built on the idea that people are utterly trusting of the government and would never question them or doctors who perform unauthorized surgery on their children.


Then you once again applied a mis-categorization that i've repeatedly put down.

I've never once mentioned trusting the government.


Not one of it my statements on your character is untrue, not when it fits you like a glove.

And then we ended up with you basically reasserting ad hominem, apparently unaware that just being insulting is neither a valid logical argument, nor an argument at all.

It's just you being vitriolic. Kinda pathetic really.

You said: "How do you bind the RFID device to mesh, and then inject it through a needle?"

I said: "You don't. Which is why I didn't suggest a needle."

You said: "If you don't use a needle to implant an RFID bound in mesh, you'll need to perform a surgical procedure to implant it."

I said: "Hypodermic device =/= a needle."

You said: "Actually, hypodermic device does = a needle."

I said: "That source doesn't claim that hypodermic device = a needle."

You said: "How do you inject something beneath the skin without a needle?"

I said: "A few posts back, I discussed how the hypodermic catheter I was talking about is constructed, and how it functions. Inside the barrel of the catheter, is a needle, which is retracted to leave the chennel open.

Thus - the barrel/channel itself, although being applied 'hypodermically', is NOT a needle."

You said: "Your hypodermic catheter HAS A NEEDLE. Therefore, hypodermic device DOES = needle. You lose."


Your argument started out with telling me I was wrong because my assertion that an RFID would fit through a needle was wrong. I pointed out I hadn't said that.

You changed your argument to there being two choices, a needle or gruesome surgery. I pointed out that there are other hypodermic options.

You changed your argument to the claim that all nypodermic devices are, by definition, needles. I pointed out that simply isn't true.

You then changed your argument to the 'if it has one it is one' idea, which I showed to be illogical.

You are now arguing that the catheter has a needle. Apparently, you're unaware that you're acknowledging my point - the catheter ISN'T a needle, and so an RFID COULD be implanted, via it.

You've wriggled desperately. And, rather then admit that you have been wrong all along (really obviously - look back at that history), you're clinging to arguments like 'if it has a needle, it is a needle'.

I should add a comment at the end, to illustrate some point I feel I need to make - but I'm actually just going to let that history speak for itself.

How do you plan to use a catheter to implant a GPS chip or RFID bound in mesh, making sure to keep the mesh flat against the inside of the skull? You need surgery for that.

As to your "claim" that I said RFID won't fit through a needle, quote it. I was talking about having to miniaturize a GPS tracking device in order to fit it through a needle, but GPS ≠ RFID.

Then you once again applied a mis-categorization that i've repeatedly put down.

I've never once mentioned trusting the government..

Then you've utterly ignored the point that the people doing these things would be lynched on general principles. People would be baying for blood, and more than a few would take matters into their own hands.

This wouldn't just get the left leaning side of the political spectrum and privacy advocates. You'd get people all across the entire political arena, and a lot of them have guns.

So what excuse are you going to cook up now?

I wouldn't. Every time the 'keep it secret, keep it safe' meme has raised it's head, I've said I'm not trying to keep it secret - certainly, not in any protracted sense.

Maybe it needs to be plausibly deniable while it's being first introduced... maybe. But people would come to accept it rapidly, and in a short space of time, they'd allow the government to mandate it - indeed, they'd pay for it, and the government would charge them fines.. maybe even jail time... if THEY let it lapse.

That's utter bullshit. If people found out that they had been secretly implanted with GPS tracking devices, allowing the government 24/7 knowledge of where they were, they would be livid. Outrage would come from the warrantless surveillance, and the fact that they were subjected to an medical procedure against their will/without their authorization. I know if I found out the government implanted me with a tracking device, I would definitely want to be part of a class action lawsuit against the government, for violating my civil rights (and I'm sure I'd be joined with many thousands, if not millions of others).

How do you plan to use a catheter to implant a GPS chip or RFID bound in mesh, making sure to keep the mesh flat against the inside of the skull? You need surgery for that.


It doesn't have to stay flat. It just has to 'be there' for the healing process to causes adhesion to.


As to your "claim" that I said RFID won't fit through a needle, quote it. I was talking about having to miniaturize a GPS tracking device in order to fit it through a needle, but GPS ≠ RFID.

Way, way back in the thread, the item that was talked about being implanted through holes punched in skulls, or whatever, was an RFID wrapped in mesh.

If YOU used my discussion of the use of hypodermic catheters, to connect to YOU talking about GPS, then you were misrepresenting my arguments.

I believe I've been pretty explicit about the device wrapped in mesh being RFID.

Then you've utterly ignored the point that the people doing these things would be lynched on general principles. People would be baying for blood, and more than a few would take matters into their own hands.

This wouldn't just get the left leaning side of the political spectrum and privacy advocates. You'd get people all across the entire political arena, and a lot of them have guns.

So what excuse are you going to cook up now?

History says no.

History says you introduce the methods of control you want, and people piss and whine about them, and then they bend over and take it.

One of two jobs I went to interviews for last year, requires the applicants to pay for their own drug test.

Way, way back in the thread, the item that was talked about being implanted through holes punched in skulls, or whatever, was an RFID wrapped in mesh.

Which completely fails to address the point that RFID would be fucking useless for crime prevention. (http://forums.joltonline.com/showpost.php?p=14821641&postcount=307)

That's utter bullshit. If people found out that they had been secretly implanted with GPS tracking devices, allowing the government 24/7 knowledge of where they were, they would be livid. Outrage would come from the warrantless surveillance, and the fact that they were subjected to an medical procedure against their will/without their authorization. I know if I found out the government implanted me with a tracking device, I would definitely want to be part of a class action lawsuit against the government, for violating my civil rights (and I'm sure I'd be joined with many thousands, if not millions of others).

They'd be mad for a few minutes. Maybe a couple of days.

Look at the actions of the last administration, that CONTINUED for years after it came out, for evidence.

Which completely fails to address the point that RFID would be fucking useless for crime prevention. (http://forums.joltonline.com/showpost.php?p=14821641&postcount=307)

...which is irrelevant to the claims that I was responding to.

...which is irrelevant to the claims that I was responding to.

So why should we pay for RFID, even if it's cheaper, if it's fucking worthless?

How would you get GPS through without paying out the ass on a level that would be frighteningly amazing?

Two questions. Answer them, or find a third option for me to attack and debunk.

So why should we pay for RFID, even if it's cheaper, if it's fucking worthless?

How would you get GPS through without paying out the ass on a level that would be frighteningly amazing?

Two questions. Answer them, or find a third option for me to attack and debunk.

RFID wouldn't be worthless.

GPS would be more expensive, but that's not an argument for it not happening.

I daren't introduce a third argument, considering how badly you've handled two.

It doesn't have to stay flat. It just has to 'be there' for the healing process to causes adhesion to.



Way, way back in the thread, the item that was talked about being implanted through holes punched in skulls, or whatever, was an RFID wrapped in mesh.

If YOU used my discussion of the use of hypodermic catheters, to connect to YOU talking about GPS, then you were misrepresenting my arguments.

I believe I've been pretty explicit about the device wrapped in mesh being RFID.

If it isn't flat, there will be have problems. It needs surface area to stick, and if it's bunched up, it won't have surface area to stick. Not to mention, there would be a bunched up lump of material in the skull, attempting to share space with the brain. I can't see a foreign object bumping into the brain being a good thing.

The original discussion was about a GPS tracking device. When RFID was mentioned, it was pointed out to you that RFID won't do what you've been talking about. That's why I've been talking about GPS.

History says no.

History says you introduce the methods of control you want, and people piss and whine about them, and then they bend over and take it.

One of two jobs I went to interviews for last year, requires the applicants to pay for their own drug test.

A drug test ≠ an invasive medical procedure done without the subject's knowledge.

RFID wouldn't be worthless.

For preventing crime, it would be. RFID is extremely short range, and holds very little data. There's not much you could do to prevent crime with it unless you're going to put an RFID reader in every doorway in the country. (note - government and civilian doorways would be required. windows that open too.)

GPS would be more expensive, but that's not an argument for it not happening.

Expensive to the tune of billions of dollars, invasive, and unethical.

I daren't introduce a third argument, considering how badly you've handled two.

Us? Neither of these two arguments could float in the ocean if they were strapped to two 5000 cubic foot balloons.

If it isn't flat, there will be have problems. It needs surface area to stick, and if it's bunched up, it won't have surface area to stick.


I suggest some remedial physics or physical chemistry.

A rougher surface increases the surface area.


The original discussion was about a GPS tracking device. When RFID was mentioned, it was pointed out to you that RFID won't do what you've been talking about. That's why I've been talking about GPS.

It was claimed RFID wouldn't do what I want.

What I want, is to be able to track people in REAL time - RFID can do that.

What I want, is to have a technology that has little or no energy drain - RFID can do that, too.

What I want is a technology that is tiny, and yet still effective - RFID can do that.

Not only is none of this science fiction - none of this is hidden knowledge, or new. It's been used in animals for decades. It was being talked about (in sections of the population) 3 or 4 years ago.


What my RFID technology wouldn't do, without modification, is the drug action. Although I'd like to see it do that, it won't do it as is. But it could - and the technology to remotely administer drugs, etc isn't unknown, either.

They'd be mad for a few minutes. Maybe a couple of days.

Look at the actions of the last administration, that CONTINUED for years after it came out, for evidence.

A few minutes? Maybe a couple of days? I don't think so. There's a significant difference between a small group of people being denied their rights, and the government forcing millions of people to permanently (or as long as the implants continue to work) give up multiple rights (right to privacy and right to determine if they want an invasive medical procedure).

I can tell you right now, if I found out that something like this happened to me, I would not let it go until the government paid me restitution for violating my rights.

For preventing crime, it would be. RFID is extremely short range, and holds very little data. There's not much you could do to prevent crime with it unless you're going to put an RFID reader in every doorway in the country. (note - government and civilian doorways would be required. windows that open too.)


Actually, if we're just talking about RFID, the only need for doorway monitoring, etc - is the cross-referencing to make sure everyone stays tagged.

If all you want to do is track the RFID, you don't need anything in doorways or windows - it's simple technology that could be added to cell towers, communications ariels, etc.


Expensive to the tune of billions of dollars, invasive, and unethical.


Expensive... maybe. Doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. This is true this year, more than ever.

Invasive is irrelevant to whether or not it's a good idea.

Unethical is arguable. I think it's more unethical to allow rape.


Us? Neither of these two arguments could float in the ocean if they were strapped to two 5000 cubic foot balloons.

Yes. The arguments must be bad, because you don't get it.

If only there was another explanation.

Actually, if we're just talking about RFID, the only need for doorway monitoring, etc - is the cross-referencing to make sure everyone stays tagged.

If all you want to do is track the RFID, you don't need anything in doorways or windows - it's simple technology that could be added to cell towers, communications ariels, etc.

Try again, even at optimum levels, power output and reception capability, an RFID chip will only have an effective range of 50 feet. Are you suggesting that cell towers are set up every 50 feet across the whole country?

If so, I should never ever have cell phone dark areas.

Oh wait, they're all over.

Expensive... maybe. Doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. This is true this year, more than ever.

I call bullshit on this. We're talking about an expenditure that not just the budget committees would notice, but be noticed in general session.

Invasive is irrelevant to whether or not it's a good idea.

Unethical is arguable. I think it's more unethical to allow rape.

Interesting from a man that proposes circumcising a baby is mutilation and disfigurement, and that this comes from the child's right to bodily integrity.

Mmm, I love the smell of hypocrite in the morning.

Yes. The arguments must be bad, because you don't get it.

No, because they make no sense because they show a lack of understanding of physics, electronics, medicine, government, and sociology.

I can tell you right now, if I found out that something like this happened to me, I would not let it go until the government paid me restitution for violating my rights.

You wouldn't take a drug test for a job, either.

I suggest some remedial physics or physical chemistry.

A rougher surface increases the surface area.



It was claimed RFID wouldn't do what I want.

What I want, is to be able to track people in REAL time - RFID can do that.

What I want, is to have a technology that has little or no energy drain - RFID can do that, too.

What I want is a technology that is tiny, and yet still effective - RFID can do that.

Not only is none of this science fiction - none of this is hidden knowledge, or new. It's been used in animals for decades. It was being talked about (in sections of the population) 3 or 4 years ago.


What my RFID technology wouldn't do, without modification, is the drug action. Although I'd like to see it do that, it won't do it as is. But it could - and the technology to remotely administer drugs, etc isn't unknown, either.

You REALLY need to learn what the hell you're talking about. If only 10% of the mesh contacts the skull because it's crumpled up, how can it have more surface area than mesh that contacts 90% of the skull, because it was laid flat?

How can RFID, which can only store a limited amount of information, provide any sort of tracking location data if it doesn't have a GPS receiver? You'd need billions (if not trillions) of sensors scattered EVERYWHERE, due to the limited range of RFID, as well as the need to broadcast its signal through the skull. The cost for the amount of sensors needed wouldn't allow the program to stay hidden at all. You wouldn't be able to get your project off the ground before people started wondering where the money was going.

Interesting from a man that proposes circumcising a baby is mutilation and disfigurement, and that this comes from the child's right to bodily integrity.

Mmm, I love the smell of hypocrite in the morning.


I cut out all your pointless insults, and just cut to this... pointless insult.

It would be hypocrisy if my whole argument to circumcision (which isn't this debate, just so you're aware) was body integrity. It's not - as you know, since you've replied to posts where I've explicitly said that circumcision that is, for example, for a medical 'fix' is appropriate.

If you could show that circumcision was really, really beneficial (to the individual or the society) - I'd back it.

As it is - there is no excuse for it - it's just mutilation for the sake of it.

So, no - no hypocrisy. Sorry.

History says no.

History says you introduce the methods of control you want, and people piss and whine about them, and then they bend over and take it.


Uh huh. So there's never been any rebellions, no uprisings in history by people who had enough? You must have had a lousy history teacher.

I cut out all your pointless insults, and just cut to this... pointless insult.

So, pointing out how RFID range is extremely limited is an insult?

Try again, even at optimum levels, power output and reception capability, an RFID chip will only have an effective range of 50 feet. Are you suggesting that cell towers are set up every 50 feet across the whole country?

Pointing out that expenditures in the billions if not tens or hundreds of billions of dollars would be noticed is an insult?

I call bullshit on this. We're talking about an expenditure that not just the budget committees would notice, but be noticed in general session.

Pointing out that your argument doesn't even begin to address all the problems with the theory is an insult?

No, because they make no sense because they show a lack of understanding of physics, electronics, medicine, government, and sociology.


<snip irrelevant shit about circumcision>

So, no - no hypocrisy. Sorry.

But bodily integrity WAS one of your main points. This undermines bodily integrity not for a small portion of the population, but for the entire population. It's hypocritical.

You wouldn't take a drug test for a job, either.

I've always been told up front that I'd need to take a drug test if I wanted the job, so the test was authorized. Also, it's not an intrusive medical procedure, it's me being handed a cup and told, "Fill it to this line, and don't flush the toilet afterward". Finally, the drug test doesn't continue to monitor my piss after I leave the building, and for years afterward.

Basically, a drug test ≠ an illegal, unauthorized medical procedure designed to track me constantly for many years.

You REALLY need to learn what the hell you're talking about. If only 10% of the mesh contacts the skull because it's crumpled up, how can it have more surface area than mesh that contacts 90% of the skull, because it was laid flat?


Take a sphere.

Surface area easily determined, yes?

Take the same sphere, and drill holes in it. What is it's surface area now?


If you say 'the same', I'll know there's no hope for you.

I've always been told up front...

I'll take that as a yes.

I remember the arguments made when these drug laws were in the pipes.

I look at how people behave now.



You think you're making new arguments, and being braver and bolder than the generation before you?

Uh huh. So there's never been any rebellions, no uprisings in history by people who had enough? You must have had a lousy history teacher.

I had a really good history teacher, actually.

Are you trying to tell em you think the 'American Revolution" was 'people who had had enough'? Tell me you're not that naive.

Take a sphere.

Surface area easily determined, yes?

Take the same sphere, and drill holes in it. What is it's surface area now?


If you say 'the same', I'll know there's no hope for you.

How much surface area does that sphere share with what it's resting on? Not as much surface area as a flat sheet of paper on that same surface.

But bodily integrity WAS one of your main points. This undermines bodily integrity not for a small portion of the population, but for the entire population. It's hypocritical.

Wow. You didn't even read the post you were replying to.

I think my work here is done.

How much surface area does that sphere share with what it's resting on? Not as much surface area as a flat sheet of paper on that same surface.

Ah, I see the problem. You think it's going to heal into the skull, or something?

I'll take that as a yes.

I remember the arguments made when these drug laws were in the pipes.

I look at how people behave now.



You think you're making new arguments, and being braver and bolder than the generation before you?

A drug test is optional. I can refuse the drug test, it's just that the employer can then refuse to offer me the job (as offering me the job is their discretion).

Respond to the rest of that post, please.

Wow. You didn't even read the post you were replying to.

I think my work here is done.

I think it is too. You have casually dismissed every argument against your idea, finally leaving GPS behind as too big and too expensive. You then jumped on RFID, while it fits the size requirements, you casually failed to notice that i have pointed out to you 4 times now that it only has an effective range of 50 feet. FIFTY feet.

To give you an idea, that's slightly shorter than the length of a trailer on a semi.

Hell, how stuff works (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/rfid3.htm) says 20 feet. How are you going to monitor everyone in the country from a radius of less than 50 feet from them at all times?

Answer that question. Just that ONE.

I had a really good history teacher, actually.

Are you trying to tell em you think the 'American Revolution" was 'people who had had enough'? Tell me you're not that naive.

Did I say American Revolution? Or was that the only one your history teacher taught you? If so, he or she was a lousy one.

Ah, I see the problem. You think it's going to heal into the skull, or something?

It's funny that your unequivocal two choices became three choices when I pointed out that two choices just wasn't realistic.

You don't have to 'crack' a babies skull to implant something in their head.

A hypdermic device that had a regulated depth would enable implantation, even by amateurs. Binding the RFID in the same sort of mesh they use for hernia surgery would give you a bug that the body would automatically attempt to heal into place. It'd arguably be more effective even than stapling.

Apparently, so do you.

I think it is too. You have casually dismissed every argument against your idea, finally leaving GPS behind as too big and too expensive.


I didn't leave it behind as too big and too expensive.

This is your habvit thoruoghout - you make the claims you want me to have made, so you can deal with the ones you have pre-prepped answers for.

I left GPS out of the 'hypodermic catheter' discussion because it wasn't in THAT discussion.


To give you an idea, that's slightly shorter than the length of a trailer on a semi.

Hell, how stuff works (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/rfid3.htm) says 20 feet. How are you going to monitor everyone in the country from a radius of less than 50 feet from them at all times?

Answer that question. Just that ONE.

Apart from anything else, I'm pretty sure, based on your numbers, that you're talking about ISO-14443 RFID - in which NOT being read at range is actually a design parameter. Other standards could give much greater range, even on purely passive systems.

Apparently, so do you.

Where did I, even once, suggest it needed to have flat surface contact with the skull? I didn't say embed it in bone. I didn't say it would heal to the skull.

Seriously - learn to read what I actually write.

Did I say American Revolution? Or was that the only one your history teacher taught you? If so, he or she was a lousy one.

I figured you'd be at least a little familiar with the American Revolution. I guess I was wrong.

I've been talking about a system in the US. I was talking about appropriations based on the US. I was talking about people's reactions, in the US.

I hadn't realised you were going to justify how Americans would react differently to their entire history... by referring to the history of some other country?

Where did I, even once, suggest it needed to have flat surface contact with the skull? I didn't say embed it in bone. I didn't say it would heal to the skull.

Seriously - learn to read what I actually write.

If it doesn't have flat surface contact, it won't be as secure. And if you weren't talking about the mesh healing to the skull, then why did you talk about it healing into place? Where would it heal into? As well, are you saying your brain bumping into bunched up mesh is a good thing?

I didn't leave it behind as too big and too expensive.

This is your habvit thoruoghout - you make the claims you want me to have made, so you can deal with the ones you have pre-prepped answers for.

I left GPS out of the 'hypodermic catheter' discussion because it wasn't in THAT discussion.

Because you saw it as indefensible.

Apart from anything else, I'm pretty sure, based on your numbers, that you're talking about ISO-14443 RFID - in which NOT being read at range is actually a design parameter. Other standards could give much greater range, even on purely passive systems.

So what passive RFID do you have that will give a range of 20 miles or more? I'm interested to see it.

EDIT: Will also have to be small enough to fit inside a baby's head and not obstruct anything, AND contain no external power source.

I figured you'd be at least a little familiar with the American Revolution. I guess I was wrong.

I've been talking about a system in the US. I was talking about appropriations based on the US. I was talking about people's reactions, in the US.

I hadn't realised you were going to justify how Americans would react differently to their entire history... by referring to the history of some other country?

There was also Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Civil War, to name a few.

I figured you'd be at least a little familiar with the American Revolution. I guess I was wrong.


No, just deluded into thinking that the American revolution would have anything at all to do with how people would react to a vastly different scenario over 200 years later.

If it doesn't have flat surface contact, it won't be as secure. And if you weren't talking about the mesh healing to the skull, then why did you talk about it healing into place? Where would it heal into? As well, are you saying your brain bumping into bunched up mesh is a good thing?

I talked about it healing into place... because it would heal into place. That doesn't even remotely LOOK like 'heal into the skull itself'. It could heal into place in the dura mater... which would also stop it 'bumping into the brain'.

Because you saw it as indefensible.


No, because the GPS won't fit through the catheter, I assume, which is why I never suggested inserting that particular technology, through that particular avenue.

It's weak to keep taking different things I've said, and trying to use them to somehow conflict. The catheter idea and the GPS idea were never united by me. That is all you.


So what passive RFID do you have that will give a range of 20 miles or more? I'm interested to see it.


Why would I indulge this kind of bullshit question?

Satisfying random criteria you make up doesn't actually advance the argument either way. It's a really weird tactic.

No, just deluded into thinking that the American revolution would have anything at all to do with how people would react to a vastly different scenario over 200 years later.

History supports my argument better than yours, I'm afraid.

Do I need to be more specific? The history of the US supports my argument better.

Why would I indulge this kind of bullshit question?

Satisfying random criteria you make up doesn't actually advance the argument either way. It's a really weird tactic.

Well, considering Cell phone towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site) have a range of 25 miles or more, I was being generous. We were going to track all this using cell phone towers and door scanners weren't we?

Well, considering Cell phone towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site) have a range of 25 miles or more, I was being generous. We were going to track all this using cell phone towers and door scanners weren't we?

No.

*le sigh*

You appear to be basing this on: "If all you want to do is track the RFID, you don't need anything in doorways or windows - it's simple technology that could be added to cell towers, communications ariels, etc."

Which means you don't pay very good attention, because you apparently missed the "don't need anything in doorways" part, the word "could", and everything that came after "cell towers".

I assume it's a lack of attention - I don't want to accuse you of dishonesty in misrepresenting my arguments.

No.

*le sigh*

You appear to be basing this on: "If all you want to do is track the RFID, you don't need anything in doorways or windows - it's simple technology that could be added to cell towers, communications ariels, etc."

Which means you don't pay very good attention, because you apparently missed the "don't need anything in doorways" part, the word "could", and everything that came after "cell towers".

I assume it's a lack of attention - I don't want to accuse you of dishonesty in misrepresenting my arguments.

What is a communications ariel?

Google and wiki had no idea.

What is the maximum range of a passive RFID chip like the one you devised? I'll plug it in to the entire area of the United States (3.79 million sq mi). You're either going to have to have a chip with fucking amazing range, or lay an infrastructure unlike anything we've ever seen before up until this point.

Hell, there are places in the US (huge sections, actually) where cell phones don't even fucking work, and they're powered communications devices. How are you going to cover the entire country with a network of detecting *unpowered* devices with much lower range?

We're talking about a cost that would probably range into the tens of billions of dollars.

Your GPS idea was more cost effective.

Communication aerial is an antenna.

One of these:

http://www.dipol.com.tr/images/anten.jpg

I talked about it healing into place... because it would heal into place. That doesn't even remotely LOOK like 'heal into the skull itself'. It could heal into place in the dura mater... which would also stop it 'bumping into the brain'.

Ah, so you're talking about an artificial subdural hematoma (artificial because instead of blood between the Dura Mater and the Arachnoid Mater, it would be the RFID implant bound in bunched up mesh)? An acute subdural hematoma has a high mortality rate and is a severe medical emergency.

So you don't care about killing newborns with this procedure.

Communication aerial is an antenna.

And are there enough (between those and cell towers) to cover all 3.79 million sq miles of the United States for tracking a passive RFID chip?

EDIT: Not to mention now we've got to involve dozens if not hundreds of private companies in a conspiracy that we have to cover up for 20 years, according to NTS.

And are there enough (between those and cell towers) to cover all 3.79 million sq miles of the United States for tracking a passive RFID chip?

I don't know. It's not my shitty idea. I was just correcting the spelling mistake that was leading to miscommunication.

I don't know. It's not my shitty idea. I was just correcting the spelling mistake that was leading to miscommunication.

Ah, thank ya.

What is a communications ariel?

Google and wiki had no idea.


It's a misspelling. I should have typed 'aerial'.


What is the maximum range of a passive RFID chip like the one you devised?


I don't claim to have devised any, so I think you're trying to construct another fallacy argument.

I've seen RFID scanners pull data from RFID at almost 100 feet, and that's with an entirely passive system (so, what's that, five times what you were talking?)

I'm sure you could get much greater range if you were 'pinging'.


I'll plug it in to the entire area of the United States (3.79 million sq mi). You're either going to have to have a chip with fucking amazing range, or lay an infrastructure unlike anything we've ever seen before up until this point.

Hell, there are places in the US (huge sections, actually) where cell phones don't even fucking work,


Huge sections full of NO people.


...and they're powered communications devices. How are you going to cover the entire country with a network of detecting *unpowered* devices with much lower range?


The RFID is 'powered' by the broadcast point.


We're talking about a cost that would probably range into the tens of billions of dollars.


Eh. Maybe. I doubt if it would all have to be rolled out simultaneously.


Your GPS idea was more cost effective.

Again, maybe, but that's because a lot of the infrastructure is already in place. A lot of the infrastructure that could be used for RFID is also in place, with minimal tweaking perhaps.

Ah, so you're talking about an artificial subdural hematoma (artificial because instead of blood between the Dura Mater and the Arachnoid Mater, it would be the RFID implant bound in bunched up mesh)? An acute subdural hematoma has a high mortality rate and is a severe medical emergency.

So you don't care about killing newborns with this procedure.

No, I'm not talking about an artificial subdural hematoma.

The risk of a hematoma is compression of the brain, because of pressure applied by hemorrhaging. I'm not talking about applying anything like that kind of pressure, I'm not talking about applying it to the brain. I'm certainly not talking about anything like building up pressure across the surface of the brain until it causes injury.

So, really, it's NOTHING like a subdural hematoma - except that it exists within the skull. That's about the only thing the two ideas have in common.


Also - I have to say, you apparently know nothing about medicine (I don't know why that should surprise me), since if it WAS, in any way comparable to a subdural hematoma, it would be chronic, not acute.

It's a misspelling. I should have typed 'aerial'.

Sd pointed that out to me.

I don't claim to have devised any, so I think you're trying to construct another fallacy argument.

Well, given that you're proposing a radical idea, I would think you'd have some idea of how far an RFID could be pulled from in best conditions.

I've seen RFID scanners pull data from RFID at almost 100 feet, and that's with an entirely passive system (so, what's that, five times what you were talking?)

Actually, I said 50 - gave you the benefit of the doubt. 100 feet is still about 131,900 feet short of what you need. Keep working.

I'm sure you could get much greater range if you were 'pinging'.

An assumption with no basis in fact, unless of course you have a link to some scientific study that states this.

Huge sections full of NO people.

Guess I'm nobody then. Hell, my cell phone signal in my home is spotty sometimes, and I live in Orlando. There's a spot on I-10 in Texas where, doing 70mph, there's not even a radio station in range for almost 2 hours, and those have MUCH greater range than cell phone towers (no cell signal, either).

The RFID is 'powered' by the broadcast point.

Exactly. That means that in order for the RFID chip to respond to the signal, the signal must be strong enough not only for the unit to detect, but to power the unit's circuits. Hence why I used the telephone analogy - the telephone has a battery. The battery powers its circuits in order to detect the signal. The signal strength for RFID to work has to be much greater - because it also has to power the unit.

Consequently, not only would these readers have to be stealthily placed with a giant conspiracy on all these cell phone towers, they would make the power usage of the tower jump through the roof, severely tax the grid, and cost a fortune - regardless of who's paying for them.

Again, maybe, but that's because a lot of the infrastructure is already in place. A lot of the infrastructure that could be used for RFID is also in place, with minimal tweaking perhaps.

You have a strange idea of "minimal tweaking" when you think that increasing an RFID reader's usable range 1,320 times over (using your figure) is minimal tweaking. That's (if you'll pardon the expression) a cosmic leap, not a minimal tweak.

Sd pointed that out to me.


Um. Okay. Heaven forbid I should also respond to a post you directed to me...?

I was unaware that Sd had pointed that out when I posted.


Well, given that you're proposing a radical idea, I would think you'd have some idea of how far an RFID could be pulled from in best conditions.


It's not that radical an idea, and I'm not really proposing it.

I got the idea from a discussion about immigration I read about... 3 or 4 years ago, where they were talking about RFID tagging all immigrants in California. (I believe).


Actually, I said 50 - gave you the benefit of the doubt. 100 feet is still about 131,900 feet short of what you need. Keep working.


I thought you said 20. Perhaps I'm confusing two posts. It's still almost twice your '50'.

Why are we making up random numbers again? 131,900 feet short why?


Guess I'm nobody then. Hell, my cell phone signal in my home is spotty sometimes, and I live in Orlando. There's a spot on I-10 in Texas where, doing 70mph, there's not even a radio station in range for almost 2 hours, and those have MUCH greater range than cell phone towers (no cell signal, either).


Where I used to work got spotty cell coverage as well, which was odd, because half a mile either way on the road was fine.

On the other hand, there's a radio relay tower about two miles from there, so if you HAD to have a signal for RFID's in that location, you'd use the relay mast, instead.


Exactly. That means that in order for the RFID chip to respond to the signal, the signal must be strong enough not only for the unit to detect, but to power the unit's circuits. Hence why I used the telephone analogy - the telephone has a battery. The battery powers its circuits in order to detect the signal. The signal strength for RFID to work has to be much greater - because it also has to power the unit.

Consequently, not only would these readers have to be stealthily placed with a giant conspiracy on all these cell phone towers, they would make the power usage of the tower jump through the roof, severely tax the grid, and cost a fortune - regardless of who's paying for them.


I think you're chasing red herrings again. All this talk of stealth and conspiracy... the telecom companies were more than happy to fork over sensitive data, I don't see why radio and cell infrastructure providers would suddenly shit their pants if the government said 'we want to mount a monitor box on the side of your tower).


You have a strange idea of "minimal tweaking" when you think that increasing an RFID reader's usable range 1,320 times over (using your figure) is minimal tweaking. That's (if you'll pardon the expression) a cosmic leap, not a minimal tweak.

That's not my figure. I never suggested '1320' of anything.

It's not that radical an idea, and I'm not really proposing it.

Then perhaps if you're not proposing it, and I oppose it, maybe we can get back to the topic of the thread?

I got the idea from a discussion about immigration I read about... 3 or 4 years ago, where they were talking about RFID tagging all immigrants in California. (I believe).

Which is still a fucking bad idea, and would not allow them to "track" the individual everywhere he went in all of California.

I thought you said 20. Perhaps I'm confusing two posts. It's still almost twice your '50'.

Indeed it is. That's why the rest of this post has to do with your figure, which I accepted as 50ft or 100ft is irrelevant:

Why are we making up random numbers again? 131,900 feet short why?

If you're actually going to track people, you can't post transmitters within 100 feet of them at all times. It would have to work on existing infrastructure. Now, I don't know if you've ever been out west, but most of the time you can see a mountain, and there will be half a dozen (or more) giant antennas on that mountain.

Do you know why?

The cell phone towers, the radio towers, the microwave antennas, the communications antennas - they're all on that one mountain. Why? Because that's where they get the longest range to the next transmitter, to the cell phone, or wherever - on a mountain. This isn't just the rockies, but basically the Mississippi river all the way west until you clear the rocky mountains.

Damn near half the lower 48, if not half the lower 48.

A cell phone tower's range is 25 miles, at least. Most towers are more than 50 miles apart, and in order to track someone between two targets that are 50 miles apart, it needs an operating radius of at least 25 miles. 25 x 5280 is 132,000 feet. So, you subtract 100 (your figure) and we're still 131,900 feet short.

Where I used to work got spotty cell coverage as well, which was odd, because half a mile either way on the road was fine.

Yeah, same here. Do you know why that is? Interference. Interference cuts down the range of all signals. Interference can be anything from running appliances to steel beams to even aluminum roofing or steel girders.

This cuts down on their range, but I didn't include that because that would be less than "optimal."

On the other hand, there's a radio relay tower about two miles from there, so if you HAD to have a signal for RFID's in that location, you'd use the relay mast, instead.

But your plan calls for everyone to be tracked - 24/7. Tell me how you're going to even begin to account for all the problems. Cost, Interference, Range difficulties, public outcry, organized crime removing or altering them, bribing doctors, officials, private companies. Hell, I'll give you a pass on "public outcry" if you can begin to prove the "I can keep it a secret for 15-20 years" argument, when our government can't keep a secret for two minutes.

I think you're chasing red herrings again. All this talk of stealth and conspiracy... the telecom companies were more than happy to fork over sensitive data, I don't see why radio and cell infrastructure providers would suddenly shit their pants if the government said 'we want to mount a monitor box on the side of your tower).

Yes, because if the government says "we want to mount this on your tower", AT&T isn't going to ask, "What for?" "Is it safe?" "Who's going to pay for it?" "Will it interfere with our equipment (which it probably would)?" or any of the other questions before people go mounting extra shit on your stuff.

That's not my figure. I never suggested '1320' of anything.

You suggested 100 feet. You need it to be 1,320 TIMES that distance.

No, I'm not talking about an artificial subdural hematoma.

The risk of a hematoma is compression of the brain, because of pressure applied by hemorrhaging. I'm not talking about applying anything like that kind of pressure, I'm not talking about applying it to the brain. I'm certainly not talking about anything like building up pressure across the surface of the brain until it causes injury.

So, really, it's NOTHING like a subdural hematoma - except that it exists within the skull. That's about the only thing the two ideas have in common.


Also - I have to say, you apparently know nothing about medicine (I don't know why that should surprise me), since if it WAS, in any way comparable to a subdural hematoma, it would be chronic, not acute.

You're saying that introducing a foreign object (such as an RFID attached to bunched up mesh) into dural layer CAN'T increase intracranial pressure, causing an artificial acute subdural hematoma?

Also, it's not like chronic subdural hematomas are a picnic either. Brain damage, seizures, and other persistent symptoms can occur.

You're saying that introducing a foreign object (such as an RFID attached to bunched up mesh) into dural layer CAN'T increase intracranial pressure, causing an artificial acute subdural hematoma?


Causing?

Okay - are you saying it IS an artificial (incorrectly labelled as acute) subdural hematoma...

or it CAUSES an artificial sudural hematoma?

It's ISN'T an artificial subdural hematoma, for the reason I already listed.

You COULD argue that it could cause an ACTUAL subdural hematoma, IF you were going to implant it with sufficient force - but... why would you do that?


Or... are you saying that just the implantation of the device itself would have the same PHYSICAL effects as a subdural hematoma? If so, then no, it wouldn't - it's not going to increase the pressure across the brian, because whichever method you used to implant it would have to have come through some kind of channel through the skull, allowing some space for pressure to have been released.


Also, it's not like chronic subdural hematomas are a picnic either. Brain damage, seizures, and other persistent symptoms can occur.

I'm not saying it would be like a chronic subdural hematoma - I'm saying that if it had ANY effects, it would be more 'chronic' than 'acute'. You are using the terminology... erratically.

Causing?

Okay - are you saying it IS an artificial (incorrectly labelled as acute) subdural hematoma...

or it CAUSES an artificial sudural hematoma?

It's ISN'T an artificial subdural hematoma, for the reason I already listed.

You COULD argue that it could cause an ACTUAL subdural hematoma, IF you were going to implant it with sufficient force - but... why would you do that?


Or... are you saying that just the implantation of the device itself would have the same PHYSICAL effects as a subdural hematoma? If so, then no, it wouldn't - it's not going to increase the pressure across the brian, because whichever method you used to implant it would have to have come through some kind of channel through the skull, allowing some space for pressure to have been released.



I'm not saying it would be like a chronic subdural hematoma - I'm saying that if it had ANY effects, it would be more 'chronic' than 'acute'. You are using the terminology... erratically.

Are you saying it won't push the arachnoid mater and pia mater towards the brain when injecting the RFID and bunched up mesh into dural layer, ? Doing so should increase intracranial pressure, because there would be less space for the cerebrospinal fluid between the pia mater and the brain.