If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Defence Secretary warns that EMP bombs could cripple Nanny State's vital fleet of television detector vans   (techweekeurope.co.uk) divider line 47
    More: Scary, EMP, defense minister, nanny state, London Today, sensors, EMP weapon, electromagnetic radiations, home runs  
•       •       •

2609 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 May 2012 at 8:07 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-05-15 08:07:03 AM
I never saw so many bleedin' aerials.
 
2012-05-15 08:12:58 AM
So, how can one build one of these so-called EMP bombs?

/just for academic interest, mind you
//So I can know one if I see one. Really
 
2012-05-15 08:13:10 AM
I think you're more likely to come across a unicorn than a television detector van. I'm still not totally convinced they actually exist.

\doesn't have a license
\\doesn't have a television
 
2012-05-15 08:20:51 AM
Ministry of Housinge.
 
2012-05-15 08:22:37 AM
i.ytimg.com

Right Bleedin' Bastard is not amused.
 
2012-05-15 08:29:39 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: [i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

Right Bleedin' Bastard is not amused.


Video Nasty.
 
2012-05-15 08:35:44 AM

tomWright: So, how can one build one of these so-called EMP bombs?

/just for academic interest, mind you
//So I can know one if I see one. Really


detonate a nuke in low orbit. huge swath of the land mass underneath is sent back to 1700s. this is nothing new and no one is stupid enough to do it because that would mean nuclear retaliation. its no more of a threat than a full blown nuke attack.
 
2012-05-15 08:46:56 AM
If he is worried about this, he should also worry about Plasma Rifles in the 40 watt range and terrorists getting their hands on the ZF1.


www.examiner.com
 
2012-05-15 08:49:50 AM
EMP bombs?!? Looney detector van, you mean.
 
2012-05-15 08:51:14 AM
"We fooled them 'orace!! They think our cat detector vans are tv detector vans!!"
"The Ministry will be pleased!!"

/sorry i'm in a wierd mood
 
2012-05-15 08:59:17 AM

stuhayes2010: If he is worried about this, he should also worry about Plasma Rifles in the 40 watt range and terrorists getting their hands on the ZF1.


[www.examiner.com image 500x340]


I wouldn't worry too much about that, they never ask about the red button.
 
2012-05-15 09:00:01 AM

Rose McGowan Loveslave: "We fooled them 'orace!! They think our cat detector vans are tv detector vans!!"
"The Ministry will be pleased!!"

/sorry i'm in a wierd mood


"They can detect a purr at fifty yards."

/First thing I thought of, too.
 
2012-05-15 09:14:56 AM
WE HAVE NO MONEY YOU coont!!! STOP SPENDING IT ON STUPID shiat

/Thank you
 
2012-05-15 09:23:06 AM

skodabunny: I think you're more likely to come across a unicorn than a television detector van. I'm still not totally convinced they actually exist.

\doesn't have a license
\\doesn't have a television


I'm not sure that they do these days (if they ever actually did), as in theory they were meant to work by detecting CRT emissions (in a similar but simplified version of Van Eck Phreaking), but these days i think the majority of people have switched to LCD or Plasma TVs.

Anyway, these days it's all just done with a big database. They take a list of all UK households, subtract a list of all UK households that own a TV license, then send a letter to all these addresses saying "you don't have a TV license, get one". If no license is purchased, then they send a "TV Licensing agent" round to ask you why you don't have a license. They have to then be able to prove that you are watching TV without a license before you can be prosecuted/fined.
 
2012-05-15 09:27:18 AM

Pinko_Commie: Anyway, these days it's all just done with a big database. They take a list of all UK households, subtract a list of all UK households that own a TV license, then send a letter to all these addresses saying "you don't have a TV license, get one". If no license is purchased, then they send a "TV Licensing agent" round to ask you why you don't have a license. They have to then be able to prove that you are watching TV without a license before you can be prosecuted/fined.


See, that whole process just boggles my mind. You have to pay the government for a license to watch TV. How does that even work? How is it even justified?
 
2012-05-15 09:36:07 AM

StrangeQ: Pinko_Commie: Anyway, these days it's all just done with a big database. They take a list of all UK households, subtract a list of all UK households that own a TV license, then send a letter to all these addresses saying "you don't have a TV license, get one". If no license is purchased, then they send a "TV Licensing agent" round to ask you why you don't have a license. They have to then be able to prove that you are watching TV without a license before you can be prosecuted/fined.

See, that whole process just boggles my mind. You have to pay the government for a license to watch TV. How does that even work? How is it even justified?


It's how the BBC is funded. The BBC shows no adverts at all, so is not beholden to any commercial interests from advertisers.

In some ways it's a bit of an anacronism as it was introduced when the BBC was the only channel, so you could have looked at it as the first channel subscription service, but was kept even after the commercial stations started later on.

I for one am OK with paying it. Works out as just over £10 a month for a whole bunch of TV and radio channels, none of which ever have ads on them.
 
2012-05-15 09:44:44 AM

StrangeQ: See, that whole process just boggles my mind. You have to pay the government for a license to watch TV. How does that even work? How is it even justified?


We have the BBC, a tv station that does not show commercials, imagine that! The bliss of not having adverts for shiat you would never buy shoved down your throat for 30 minutes of every hour!!

The licence fee pays for the programming... Things you foreign chaps like; Dr. Who, Top Gear etc...

Personally I think it is a good idea, £100 odd pound a year is a bargain to not have to sit there watching adverts every 15 minutes.

The one I do not get is why do I pay SKY tv extra for more channels that show adverts?... Surely my "licence" to watch that channel is paid for in watching the advert?
 
2012-05-15 09:46:10 AM
So... Um... Does this mean that there were no TV commercials at all back in the pre-cable, pre-satellite days? Or were there other channels besides the BBC?

/ignorant Yank
 
2012-05-15 09:50:57 AM

Pinko_Commie: StrangeQ: Pinko_Commie: Anyway, these days it's all just done with a big database. They take a list of all UK households, subtract a list of all UK households that own a TV license, then send a letter to all these addresses saying "you don't have a TV license, get one". If no license is purchased, then they send a "TV Licensing agent" round to ask you why you don't have a license. They have to then be able to prove that you are watching TV without a license before you can be prosecuted/fined.

See, that whole process just boggles my mind. You have to pay the government for a license to watch TV. How does that even work? How is it even justified?

It's how the BBC is funded. The BBC shows no adverts at all, so is not beholden to any commercial interests from advertisers.

In some ways it's a bit of an anacronism as it was introduced when the BBC was the only channel, so you could have looked at it as the first channel subscription service, but was kept even after the commercial stations started later on.

I for one am OK with paying it. Works out as just over £10 a month for a whole bunch of TV and radio channels, none of which ever have ads on them.


Ah ok, well that makes more sense. So it's kinda like the notion we had over here when cable tv was first being tossed around and every said that nobody would be willing to watch advertisements if they were paying to watch the programming.

/Cable TV: paying $80 a month for the privilege to watch 20 minutes of commercials during a 40 minute program.
 
2012-05-15 09:51:31 AM

Pinko_Commie: StrangeQ: Pinko_Commie: Anyway, these days it's all just done with a big database. They take a list of all UK households, subtract a list of all UK households that own a TV license, then send a letter to all these addresses saying "you don't have a TV license, get one". If no license is purchased, then they send a "TV Licensing agent" round to ask you why you don't have a license. They have to then be able to prove that you are watching TV without a license before you can be prosecuted/fined.

See, that whole process just boggles my mind. You have to pay the government for a license to watch TV. How does that even work? How is it even justified?

It's how the BBC is funded. The BBC shows no adverts at all, so is not beholden to any commercial interests from advertisers.

In some ways it's a bit of an anacronism as it was introduced when the BBC was the only channel, so you could have looked at it as the first channel subscription service, but was kept even after the commercial stations started later on.

I for one am OK with paying it. Works out as just over £10 a month for a whole bunch of TV and radio channels, none of which ever have ads on them.



Holy crap yes, I'd pay that gladly. Stupid America!
 
2012-05-15 10:04:20 AM

vogonity: So... Um... Does this mean that there were no TV commercials at all back in the pre-cable, pre-satellite days? Or were there other channels besides the BBC?

/ignorant Yank


There were other channels.

We had:
BBC1 (launched 1936 - no ads)
ITV (launched 1955 - ads)
BBC2 (launched 1964 - no ads)
Channel 4 (Launched 1982 - ads)
Channel 5 (Launched 1997 - ads)

Satellite TV didn't start until about 1988 in the UK, and cable wasn't partucularly widespread at all until the early/mid 80's (and it was limited to the air broadcast channels anyway until '84 or so). So basically until 1980 or so we had 3 channels, 2 with no ads and one with ads.
 
2012-05-15 10:12:18 AM
Im really tired of all this doomsday talk. Quit teasing me...Im totally ready for the end of modern civilization...so quit all the yapping and make it so already.
 
2012-05-15 10:19:37 AM
I'm reminded of the story of the Russian fighter pilot that defected and handed over his jet to the US in the 70s. The US discovered the Russians were still using valves in their plane as a way to avoid the effects of EMPs.

Bring back values, that's what I say!!
 
2012-05-15 10:25:23 AM
static7.businessinsider.com

"Don't say I didn't warn ya!"
 
2012-05-15 10:31:37 AM
As dangerous as an emp bomb can be, a single Polaris Raven could conquer Earth without much difficulty.
 
2012-05-15 10:36:49 AM

jamspoon: I'm reminded of the story of the Russian fighter pilot that defected and handed over his jet to the US in the 70s. The US discovered the Russians were still using valves in their plane as a way to avoid the effects of EMPs.

Bring back values, that's what I say!!


My main HF radio still has vacuum tube finals (two 6146Bs) and a tube driver (a single 12BY7). I need to replace them soon, however. I'm only getting about 50 watts out on the lower bands, and I should be getting over 100. Still, not bad for a ~40 year old boat anchor.
 
2012-05-15 11:13:55 AM

dittybopper: Ministry of Housinge.


Came for the Eric The Half A Bee / Fish License (Licence) reference.

rlv.zcache.com

Leaving with an entire menagerie called Abdul.
 
2012-05-15 11:57:03 AM

tomWright: So, how can one build one of these so-called EMP bombs?

/just for academic interest, mind you
//So I can know one if I see one. Really


You don't buy them, you steal them. And if your (former) best friend tries to stop you and you manage to put him in a death trap, make sure you set the timer to six minutes.
 
2012-05-15 12:02:11 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: [i.ytimg.com image 480x360]

Right Bleedin' Bastard is not amused.


Vyvian! Eat the Telly!
 
2012-05-15 12:54:00 PM

tomWright: So, how can one build one of these so-called EMP bombs?

/just for academic interest, mind you
//So I can know one if I see one. Really


I remember an old friend of mine once mentioned that all you need was a stick of dynamite wrapped with copper wire to make a rudimentary EMP device. I couldn't tell you if that works since I've never tried it. Seems like it would create a lot of shrapnel, which would lead to unintended consequences.

/hold on, someone is knocking at my door...
 
2012-05-15 01:14:18 PM

germ78: tomWright: So, how can one build one of these so-called EMP bombs?

/just for academic interest, mind you
//So I can know one if I see one. Really

I remember an old friend of mine once mentioned that all you need was a stick of dynamite wrapped with copper wire to make a rudimentary EMP device. I couldn't tell you if that works since I've never tried it. Seems like it would create a lot of shrapnel, which would lead to unintended consequences.

/hold on, someone is knocking at my door...


If your friend knew what he was talking about, then I suspect he was pulling your leg. Because all that would get you is a bunch of soft copper shrapnel.
 
2012-05-15 01:21:58 PM

germ78: I remember an old friend of mine once mentioned that all you need was a stick of dynamite wrapped with copper wire to make a rudimentary EMP device. I couldn't tell you if that works since I've never tried it. Seems like it would create a lot of shrapnel, which would lead to unintended consequences.

/hold on, someone is knocking at my door...


I think your friend had it the wrong way round.

IIRC you have to have a highly charged coil surrounded by explosives, such that detonating the explosive creates an implosion around the coil, and it's the crushing force of the implosion that squeezes the magnetic field to EMP densities.

But for all I know, that's complete bullshiat. It sounds good enough for movie science though.
 
2012-05-15 02:47:57 PM
Someone militaryXP gainsay me, but unless it was FOBS, wouldnt we have enough warning to shut down the national telephone system so people would know what to do afterwards? And I'm sure we have plenty of solenoids(for luck) to get the trucking routes up again. How would this fark up anything except making us use our smart phones for internet porn until some transformer stations could get rewound?

/I know, no HDfootball, ROIT!
 
2012-05-15 02:48:34 PM
www.unitedstatesaction.com
 
2012-05-15 03:26:25 PM
dam those Ministry of Housinge Cat Detector Vans
 
2012-05-15 04:12:39 PM

StrangeQ: Pinko_Commie: Anyway, these days it's all just done with a big database. They take a list of all UK households, subtract a list of all UK households that own a TV license, then send a letter to all these addresses saying "you don't have a TV license, get one". If no license is purchased, then they send a "TV Licensing agent" round to ask you why you don't have a license. They have to then be able to prove that you are watching TV without a license before you can be prosecuted/fined.

See, that whole process just boggles my mind. You have to pay the government for a license to watch TV. How does that even work? How is it even justified?


We get tons of great BBC shows, with no adverts at all. It's great.
 
2012-05-15 04:27:48 PM
tomWright
So, how can one build one of these so-called
EMP bombs?
/just for academic interest, mind you
//So I can know one if I see one. Really
`


Copper tube, wire and capacitors. Oh yeah - explosives, high speed explosives are the tricky part.
That's pretty much it.
 
2012-05-15 04:30:41 PM

gmoney101: StrangeQ: See, that whole process just boggles my mind. You have to pay the government for a license to watch TV. How does that even work? How is it even justified?

We have the BBC, a tv station that does not show commercials, imagine that! The bliss of not having adverts for shiat you would never buy shoved down your throat for 30 minutes of every hour!!

The licence fee pays for the programming... Things you foreign chaps like; Dr. Who, Top Gear etc...

Personally I think it is a good idea, £100 odd pound a year is a bargain to not have to sit there watching adverts every 15 minutes.

The one I do not get is why do I pay SKY tv extra for more channels that show adverts?... Surely my "licence" to watch that channel is paid for in watching the advert?


Especially since shows like Top Gear can say a car is "crap" without having to worry about what advertisers will say. The BBC also have a consumer programme called Watchdog that can criticise any company without worrying about advertising. It is also why an hour long show actually lasts an hour, and why things like Sherlock have to be cut to make way for adverts in the US.
BBC America shows adverts because the BBC is not allowed to use TV Licence funding to fund service outside the UK.

Lots of countries in Europe have a TV licence. Ireland, France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Italy, Belgium Switzerland etc etc. Many costing far more than the UK TVL. Countries like Germany make you buy a Smartphone licence or a Broadband licence if you don't have a TV licence. Belgium makes you buy a radio licence for car radios.

/BTW, one licence covers all the TVs in a home. It is not "per set".

Imagine what PBS could do with serious funding. The BBC gets £3.5 billion a year from the TV licence. Since the US population is four times the UK each home would only have to pay $60 a year to get four main ad free channels, two ad free childrens channels, an ad free (and impartial) news channel, four main national radio channels, lots more local channels, free online catchup service iPlayer etc. And since they don't have to worry about ratings they can air shows that only get small audiences. No cancelling a show after five episodes.
//Mind you, since so many Americans are so against universal healthcare then a TV licence has no chance.
 
2012-05-15 07:55:35 PM

StrangeQ:
See, that whole process just boggles my mind. You have to pay the government for a license to watch TV. How does that even work? How is it even justified?


It pays for the BBC. Which are not supposed to have any political affiliation or show adverts for 3rd party products & services.

This rather went out the window with the old UK Gold channels found on Sky/Virgin, as they showed exclusively old BBC content (and were, in fact BBC owned & operated) but spammed adverts like crazy. Theoretically you need a license to watch iPlayer, in practise they don't collect your name/address no matter how huge the computer monitor you buy is.
 
2012-05-16 03:41:36 AM

Flint Ironstag: //Mind you, since so many Americans are so against universal healthcare then a TV licence has no chance.




Keep your TV death panels out of my America!
 
2012-05-16 09:10:44 AM

Flint Ironstag: gmoney101: StrangeQ: See, that whole process just boggles my mind. You have to pay the government for a license to watch TV. How does that even work? How is it even justified?

We have the BBC, a tv station that does not show commercials, imagine that! The bliss of not having adverts for shiat you would never buy shoved down your throat for 30 minutes of every hour!!

The licence fee pays for the programming... Things you foreign chaps like; Dr. Who, Top Gear etc...

Personally I think it is a good idea, £100 odd pound a year is a bargain to not have to sit there watching adverts every 15 minutes.

The one I do not get is why do I pay SKY tv extra for more channels that show adverts?... Surely my "licence" to watch that channel is paid for in watching the advert?

Especially since shows like Top Gear can say a car is "crap" without having to worry about what advertisers will say. The BBC also have a consumer programme called Watchdog that can criticise any company without worrying about advertising. It is also why an hour long show actually lasts an hour, and why things like Sherlock have to be cut to make way for adverts in the US.
BBC America shows adverts because the BBC is not allowed to use TV Licence funding to fund service outside the UK.

Lots of countries in Europe have a TV licence. Ireland, France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Italy, Belgium Switzerland etc etc. Many costing far more than the UK TVL. Countries like Germany make you buy a Smartphone licence or a Broadband licence if you don't have a TV licence. Belgium makes you buy a radio licence for car radios.

/BTW, one licence covers all the TVs in a home. It is not "per set".

Imagine what PBS could do with serious funding. The BBC gets £3.5 billion a year from the TV licence. Since the US population is four times the UK each home would only have to pay $60 a year to get four main ad free channels, two ad free childrens channels, an ad free (and impartial) news channel, four main national radio ...


Don't pretend that "free from advertiser influence" = free from all outside influence, most obviously political influence. The golden rule (he who has the gold makes the rules) still applies to the BBC - in other words, anything you gain from bigger BBC funding is lost when politicians make the calculation that they have more to gain by pulling strings than they would lose in the unlikely event they were caught doing so.
 
2012-05-16 10:12:26 AM

Boatmech:

Copper tube, wire and capacitors. Oh yeah - explosives, high speed explosives are the tricky part.
That's pretty much it.


If it doesn't have a vircator, it's pretty wussy.
 
2012-05-16 10:13:15 AM
In other words, the FCG is just a part of your complete breakfast.
 
2012-05-16 11:28:32 AM

erewhon: Boatmech:

Copper tube, wire and capacitors. Oh yeah - explosives, high speed explosives are the tricky part.
That's pretty much it.

If it doesn't have a vircator, it's pretty wussy.


Shhhh! That's the secret evil genius part.
 
2012-05-16 08:39:48 PM

Gulper Eel: Flint Ironstag: gmoney101: StrangeQ: See, that whole process just boggles my mind. You have to pay the government for a license to watch TV. How does that even work? How is it even justified?

We have the BBC, a tv station that does not show commercials, imagine that! The bliss of not having adverts for shiat you would never buy shoved down your throat for 30 minutes of every hour!!

The licence fee pays for the programming... Things you foreign chaps like; Dr. Who, Top Gear etc...

Personally I think it is a good idea, £100 odd pound a year is a bargain to not have to sit there watching adverts every 15 minutes.

The one I do not get is why do I pay SKY tv extra for more channels that show adverts?... Surely my "licence" to watch that channel is paid for in watching the advert?

Especially since shows like Top Gear can say a car is "crap" without having to worry about what advertisers will say. The BBC also have a consumer programme called Watchdog that can criticise any company without worrying about advertising. It is also why an hour long show actually lasts an hour, and why things like Sherlock have to be cut to make way for adverts in the US.
BBC America shows adverts because the BBC is not allowed to use TV Licence funding to fund service outside the UK.

Lots of countries in Europe have a TV licence. Ireland, France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Italy, Belgium Switzerland etc etc. Many costing far more than the UK TVL. Countries like Germany make you buy a Smartphone licence or a Broadband licence if you don't have a TV licence. Belgium makes you buy a radio licence for car radios.

/BTW, one licence covers all the TVs in a home. It is not "per set".

Imagine what PBS could do with serious funding. The BBC gets £3.5 billion a year from the TV licence. Since the US population is four times the UK each home would only have to pay $60 a year to get four main ad free channels, two ad free childrens channels, an ad free (and impartial) news channel, four main national radio ...

Don't pretend that "free from advertiser influence" = free from all outside influence, most obviously political influence. The golden rule (he who has the gold makes the rules) still applies to the BBC - in other words, anything you gain from bigger BBC funding is lost when politicians make the calculation that they have more to gain by pulling strings than they would lose in the unlikely event they were caught doing so.


You think the government "pull the strings" at the BBC? The government, especially the conservatives, hate the BBC, and the feeling is generally mutual. They have no direct control over the BBC, much to their annoyance.
 
2012-05-17 02:35:54 PM
farm1.staticflickr.com
 
2012-05-17 02:40:14 PM
mimg.ugo.com

andrewsidea.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report