Human Chips

[glatt]

OK all you experts, assuming the advances can be made to increase the range to hundreds of miles, what about interference? If you have a military theater of operations with 200,000 RFIDs all transmitting at the same frequency at a range of hundreds of miles, how will you not have interference? This isn't cars zooming single file under a reader, or jeans coming out of a store one at a time.

Could you have a reader that sends out a narrow beam and scans regions of an area, much like the ray of a cathode tube scanning the individual lines of the display screen? A big eye in the sky, slowly scanning the ground back and forth for individual RFIDs?

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

OK all you experts, assuming the advances can be made to increase the range to hundreds of miles, what about interference? If you have a military theater of operations with 200,000 RFIDs all transmitting at the same frequency at a range of hundreds of miles, how will you not have interference? This isn't cars zooming single file under a reader, or jeans coming out of a store one at a time.

There are numerous solutions to this problem. Ethernet demonstrates one using collision avoidance. Two common solutions include time domain and frequency domain multiplexing. AT&T cell phone systems used frequency domain multiplexing. Other better systems use time domain multiplexing. Another is Wide Band Spread Spectrum broadcasting. A technology originally patented by Hedy Lamar in the WWII era. A technology that probably should have been appearing in a scaled down version in Version N of Wifi.

Also useful are antenna polarity. This is why satellites with only 12 frequencies (channels) can operate 24 transponders on those 12 frequencies.

Obviously is antenna gain. MaggieL posted pictures of her satellite directional antenna - a yahgi. I suspect it is so directional as to require adjustments to within single digit degrees.

And then we go back to Shannon's 1940s theories on communication. How to cut through the noise? Two methods. More power or slower data rates. Today those revolutionary concepts should be common knowledge to the computer user.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

I did his work. Some new RFID electronic tolls booths in the UHF range work reliable if the vehicle stays under 20 MPH. RFID was not the point.

I don't know where you got 20 mph. I drive under the toll archway every single day at 80 mph. It scans my windshield tag and sends me a bill.

Clodfobble finally provided a citation only after being pushed.

Actually, I provided a second and third citation after you accused the first one of being untrustworthy.

Get those simple facts was not difficult. RFID for electronic toll collection is a recent achievement that requires a vehicle to pass through slowly. That information was available at responsible sources such as RFID Times Magazine. Only required was something to make Clodfobble's post credible.

Ah. So first, I must be wrong because my tag has a battery, I just don't know about it. Oh, turns out it really doesn't have a battery.

Then, I must be wrong because the range of the tag is too small for a toll booth to read it as I pass by. Oh, turns out the range is at least 10 meters, maybe as many as 30, and my state's archways are about 15-20 feet over the roadway, well within range.

Now I must be wrong because I didn't mention I have to drive 20 mph through the tollbooth. Can you guess what's coming, tw? Oh, turns out you're still wrong, traffic does not slow for pre-paid TXTag customers. Your "responsible" source is either inaccurate or out-of-date, much like your original technical citation from 2005.

[Elspode]

Clod, just because the thing works, doesn't have a battery, operates at an impossible range and at unrealistic speeds doesn't mean that you still aren't wrong, you know.

[Perry Winkle]

People still respond to tw?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Of course we do. We are equal opportunity abusers.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I don't know where you got 20 mph. I drive under the toll archway every single day at 80 mph. It scans my windshield tag and sends me a bill.

But again, how do you know it is an RFID device? Or is it a battery powered transponder as was standard even in Germany long before mid-Atlantic America installed EZ Pass?

Delaware River Authority used something completely different for what - a generation now? They used bar codes. Was it RFID? Of course not. Are your archways reading RFID - or bar codes as was standard so long ago?

Clodfobble. Step back and review what happened. You claimed RFID was being used by citing only a reporter (probably a political reporter) reporting what was (probably) said by a politician. Where is the credible 'supporting fact'? If RFID was being used, and if the reporter had a grasp of what he was reporting, then the reporter would have also cited RFID as a major new technology superior to what was routine on America's east coast and on German autobahns. Your reporter did not even state that; just another reason why his report was questionable.

Cited were reasons why that RFID claim was questionable. Your first two citations (including the better one from Motorola) also did not support your claim. Neither citation defined RFIDs for automotive operation. RFIDs have been around for easily 20 years (I saw an early version patented by RCA back in the late 1960s). That does not mean RFIDs are sufficient for the toll booth operations. Your citations provided no useful numbers. I had to search well beyond those citations to find any numbers. I had to do your work.

I don't care whether you drive down the highway at 80 MPH. It tells us nothing useful. Such technology has been used for over a decade even in Germany - but not using RFID. Question remains whether that device is RFID, AND, more important, missing are reasons why we should know it is RFID. This brings us right back to the many who also believed a lying president about WMDs by using exact same logic. I feel therefore I know? When was that sufficient?

I don't know if RFID is reliable for 80 MPH. And using what was posted, nobody else does either. But RFIDs at 80 MPH is a new ability. Whether your arch is monitoring by RFID was not questioned. The question was repeatedly about *why* you know it is RFID. A credible person does not take one's word for it just as credible people here did not believe outright lies that Saddam had WMDs. The repeated questioning is about *why* you and Mr Clodfobble somehow know. Knowing without knowing why is akin to lying. Knowing without knowing why is how America destroyed the lives of millions.

I only saw two Clodfobble citations for RFIDs. Neither made any claim that RFIDs were sufficient for automotive environments. Neither provided useful numbers. The post also never quoted that so important fact: useful numbers. I had to do her work. And still, no credible evidence said RFID works at 80 MPH in that harsh automotive environment.

The 20 MPH limit is from articles in RFID Times. Is TX Tag using RFID? www.rfidtimes.org may be a useful source to justify your speculation. Notice no emotion. Just a routine demand for blunt, damn honest facts.

Meanwhile, moving back to more relevant questions is the topic of privacy. Who controls that privacy or do we still have a right to privacy?

In one environment where passive ID was used in a secure environment (one could not even use the bathroom without another who had a passive ID card), one also could control his privacy by turning the card upside down. Each person could determine whether 'big brother' knew where he was because privacy was important even in secure locations. Under the current government, you have no right to such privacy.

[yesman065]

You, sir, are a moron. ~snip~ It's OK to be wrong. Sure, it hurts your street cred a little, ~snip~ but it's much less painful then continually driving the wrong point home over and over again.

Welcome aboard Mr. Clodfobble - very VERY nice to meet you. Please stick around.

[Happy Monkey]

Here

Originally Posted by some registration-required site

The Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) has chosen TransCore's eGo Plus RFID technology for use in the area's Central Texas Turnpike programme, a US$2 billion transportation initiative. The contract provides for the initial supply of 500,000 eGo Plus tags, branded locally as 'TxTag' ...

Another

The eGo Plus sticker tag is a 915 MHz radio frequency programmable, beam-powered, windshield-mounted tag. Packaged as a flexible sticker, this tag is ideal for applications that require low-cost, easily installed tags and is appropriate for electronic toll collection, airport access and ground transportation management systems, parking access, and security access. The tag supports multiple protocols, making it easy to migrate from a mixed-tag population to a common tag.

The eGo Plus, non-battery sticker tag offers a read range of up to 31.5 feet (9.6 meters) and 2048-bit read/write memory at a fraction of the cost of older, less flexible RFID technology. The tag provides the capability to read, write, rewrite, or permanently lock individual bytes. Custom printing and labeling is also available.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Here

Finally. A citation with credibility. So much pain necessary to get what should have been provided long before Mr Clodfobble went postal.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

I don't know if RFID is reliable for 80 MPH. And using what was posted, nobody else does either. But RFIDs at 80 MPH is a new ability... And still, no credible evidence said RFID works at 80 MPH in that harsh automotive environment.

The 20 MPH limit is from articles in RFID Times. Is TX Tag using RFID? www.rfidtimes.org may be a useful source to justify your speculation.

Fine. I'll use your site. My toll tag is not only passive, successfully operating in the 900mHz spectrum over the open road at normal highway speeds, but the same tags were in use on Georgia tollways as long ago as mid-summer 2005. According to your website. So suck it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

So suck it.

Clodfobble - Happy Monkey did your work for you. You owe him a "Thank you". You owe tw an apology for wasting bandwidth with unjustified insults. Just the facts girl.

[Happy Monkey]

I don't know if I'd act so superior, tw. You could have done the same 30 seconds of Googling. Your assumptions were no more supported than Clodfobble's, and yours were actually incorrect.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I don't know if I'd act so superior, tw. You could have done the same 30 seconds of Googling.

There is not a single word that even implies am I feeling superior. If you think otherwise, you are reading into posts what was not intended. In fact, assume I intentionally misword things just so that others will have an emotional response. I don't. But to understand what is posted, make that assumption. I have no emotional attachment nor any anger at Mr or Mrs Clodfobble. As far as I am concerned, both made a human error.

The point was that Clodfobble could have done that search in 30 seconds. I even provided assistance by doing some work for her - www.rfidtimes.org. I also tried desperately to find evidence in her own citations that proved her point. I am not being smug. I am being tw which means I reply mostly to things often overlooked by others and I viciously demand honesty. Nothing smug or 'superior' about that.

It does not matter if Clodfobble was correct in every claim. A claim made without supporting facts from a credible source - and emotional outbursts when that necessary demand for supporting facts is made again - is totally irrelevant. Her claims were contrary to other existing trends. A simple citation to demonstrate technology has recently advanced significantly could have eliminated all that emotion. Instead she only provided two citations (the better one from Motorola) that provided no such numbers.

Clodfobble has simply demonstrated again why so many so hate mankind as to not always need 'why' to know. Again, minor was that Tx Tag uses RFID. More important was that the claim was made on speculation and then emotion was used rather than facts. Anyone who does not grasp that repeatedly stated point, by now, is not reading. Demonstrated from the very beginning (with no reason for anyone to be emotional) is why Clodfobble knew something without first asking why (ie. the numbers). That point provided with reasons why her claim was suspect.

Provided were many reasons to doubt her original claim. Rather than provide useful facts, there was an emotional outburst followed by two citations that did not provide useful information. Blood to sharks.

Clodfobble really did not know if it was RFID. She used speculation probably based in hearsay - the same reason why so many waste money on Listerene or believe a president who routinely lies.

Nothing smug here. This same standard confronted MaggieL when she was promoting Saddam's mythical 'WMD for attacking America'. I don't care if anyone hated me for it. I went after one thing so important everywhere in life. The irrefutilbe fact.

I not apologize for doing what is expected of everyone. However Clodfobble may owe an apology for repeatedly knowing without even knowing why (the underlying reasons) AND for then becoming emotional when reasons to doubt her claim were provided. I neither expect nor really care if that apology exists. An adult Clodfobble would simply take logical facts from this experience (speculation without supporting facts), prosper, and have zero emotion over this thread.

Again, Happy Monkey demonstrated how quickly Clodfobble could have obtained simple supporting facts from a credible source. That poltical reporter is was not credible for reasons provided previously. That is the point - and nothing else even implied.

[Clodfobble]

All of the information in HM's link was in my original link. The fact that you don't trust my original link is not my issue.