|
Because the moment you do that someone will trigger the bomb by waiting for the phone signal to be jammed.
|
|
|
|
|
How can they trigger the bomb when the signal is being jammed?
|
|
|
|
|
The idea is to use the jamming signal as the detenation signal.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
|
|
|
|
|
Jamming is flooding the spectrum with higher "volume", so that could be used as the trigger instead.
ie, Trigger off the jamming signal, rather than off the mobile signal being jammed.
Iain.
I have now moved to Sweden for love (awwww).
If you're in Scandinavia and want an MVP on the payroll (or happy with a remote worker), or need cotract work done, give me a job! http://cv.imcsoft.co.uk/[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
When you place the bomb you start a phone call to the device. This leaves it in the armed state. If you put the hone down or someone jams the signal the thing goes off.
Assuming that the only people with jamming devices are soldiers and that the network is pretty solid (this may be a problem) this would have the advantage that the bomb would go off when troops got within a certain distance.
For a slightly more high tech response you could detect the jammer and then the device would detonate when a military jamming vehicle went past.
|
|
|
|
|
Russell Jones wrote: When you place the bomb you start a phone call to the device
How long? Till some surveilance vehicle passes by?!?!
I would think that these kind of people would simply be using the signal going to the speaker so that when the phone receives a call the speaker signal voltage trigers the payload.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, OK, I get it 
I'm glad you guys are not the ones building the bombs. I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Be very glad, programmers are lazy and hate to do things twice. Roadside bombs are inefficient and have to be repeated. It's not really a process we'd like to see 'optimized' though.
The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but if the bomb was triggered by the jamming signal people would be further from the bomb when it was detonated. Unless this is a very special jamming signal that only works within a few meters.
My current favourite word is: Delicious!
-SK Genius
Game Programming articles start - here[ ^]-
|
|
|
|
|
everybody in this thread knows far too much about blowing things up. 
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Surtees wrote: everybody in this thread knows far too much about blowing things up.
and should expect a call from their respective secret service agency
|
|
|
|
|
If I was at school now and did half the things I did at school all those years ago I'd be firmly locked up in Guantanamo for sure.
These days the kids can't even play conkers without safety specs! I'm not sure how the aluminium tube based rocket with the "slightly faster burning than expected" propellant would go down.
|
|
|
|
|
Russell Jones wrote: I'm not sure how the aluminium tube based rocket with the "slightly faster burning than expected" propellant would go down
That only happens when you point it in the wrong direction 
|
|
|
|
|
Our implementation of the concept went in pretty much every direction. I don't think the direction that it was pointed in would have mad a great deal of difference
|
|
|
|
|
Even me? Thought I knew just enough 
|
|
|
|
|
Any problem can be solved with the proper application of explosives.
Robert Surtees wrote: knows far too much about
How can you know too much about blowing things up?
The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.
|
|
|
|
|
ECM, yes they are used when available.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Norm,
The insurgents in southern Thailand (the Yawi speaking Muslim Malay inhabitants in the provinces that once made up the old Malay Sultanate of Pattani which has been under Thai control for over 200 years) have switched to using walkie-talkies[^] to detonate their bombs after the Thai military frequently disconnected cell phone service, and after a program of forced registration of buying of prepaid sim cards was imposed.
best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK they haven't been for several years. After we started using EW birds to mass dial every cell in range, blowing up a few bomb shops in the process, most of the bombers went back to old fashioned garage door opener (Line of sight IR) or hard wired remotes that weren't spoofable.
The European Way of War: Blow your own continent up.
The American Way of War: Go over and help them.
|
|
|
|
|
Click[^]
I am happy that they down voted concepts. Stroustrup explains some problems with concepts here[^]. Do you see any advantage in Concepts other than simplifying the template error messages?
|
|
|
|
|
It's pretty phenomenal to see how CP has changed. 5 years ago, this thread would have been 'da bomb'. Today, with .NET being the primary dev platform for the average active CPian, the first reaction for most people would be, 'concepts, uhm what're those?'
|
|
|
|
|
i never took the time to investigate or use concepts in code, infact i rarely use templates...
|
|
|
|
|
killabyte wrote: i never took the time to investigate or use concepts in code, infact i rarely use templates...
Yeah, but imagine the reaction if C# 4.0 dropped constraints from generics.
|
|
|
|
|
thankfully i am blissfully unaware of C# and most managed environments 
|
|
|
|
|
It's different anyway, if you drop constraints from generics in C# then there are basically 3 choices:
1) Treat objects with a generic type as Object but with type safety. You'd have to cast them to do anything with them other than assigning. This cast would fail at runtime = BAD
2) Pretend the object has the function that you're trying to call on it and fail at runtime = BAD
3) Go Java style and compile the generic thing once for every different type parameter. How would you use it if it's in a DLL? I don't know. Sounds like a fail. But at least you would catch most cases of improper usage since you could accurately test whether all functions that are called actually exist in the type that was used as type parameter.
C++ already went way 3 long before Java did so, but it was meant as templates rather than generics anyway.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
