New camera tech can detect blood and water content in your car. Ew.
By Paul Miller 
posted February 24th 2008 8:57AM
posted February 24th 2008 8:57AM
[Thanks, Richard W]
posted February 24th 2008 8:57AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Easy to beat. Just fill up a blow up doll with water, add in some iron, maybe some gelatin mix. Might possibly need a heater to keep the water at body temperature.
Of course, when police use this to try to locate a dead body and are led to the trunk of your car where you have this thing stored, it'll probably be just a teensy bit of hassle
You post made me laugh out loud, my house mates must think I'm nuts.
P.S doesn't forget 1.8 oz of chicken blood.
OK, sounds complicated.
I wonder how many people will just keep a corpse in their trunk to use the carpool lane.
Yeah that's just great, people will drive around with gallons of water increasing pollution severely, causing a law against having water in your car.
Although obviously this technology will be used for much darker fascist things, and that's in the back of the mind of those that are involved with it.
A curse upon Loughborough University, may their people perish for helping fascist with new technology .
Oh and how is this magic suppose to work? radiation?
Why not just drain a hobo of its blood? Then you're solving two problems at once. Or better yet, kill the hobo, take it to a taxidermist, and use it a la "Weekend at Berney's" style.
What about the people who are fat enough to have 2x the blood and water levels of a fit person? Do they squeak by?
And what about the skinny little soccer mom with a newborn at her side? No carpool for you!
well im not so sure that those people will even be able to fit in a car. 18 wheeler-maybe, but a normal car...
what if vampires get hold of this :0
Indeed
humans or any other living thing, arent hard to find...
what about blind vampires.
... or thirsty vampires. They need it twice as much.
In terms of british literature, the realistic chances of vampires have been hurt substantially, as well as Sweeney Todd/Jack the Ripper scenarios. However, Orwell: Right on track!
In terms of british literature, the realistic chances of vampires have been hurt substantially, as well as Sweeney Todd/Jack the Ripper scenarios. However, Orwell: Right on track!
Blind Vampires using a CAMERA... Yea.... THAT would work...
LOL!!!
This entire thread is hilarious.
I'm in favor of an auto-cut off switch inside the car to keep drunks from driving. I just hope that it is done in a way that carries a 99.9% fail safe.
I'm sure alot of people here will disagree with me but the government should be responsible for mandating all cars have this technology by some date (say 2030).
Drunk Driving has ruined more likes than it should have been able to in America.
Sorry, taking away people's privacy won't make your dead relative come back.
First of all, your comment shows that you are an ASSHOLE.
Second I am fortunate in that I've never lost a relative to drunk driving.
I just feel bad for people who have and believe the government can reduce and possibly stop this with the aid of technology.
There are 301,000,000 people currently in the United States. Let's argue that a modest 25% of them own a car.
(301,000,000 * .25)
Let's assume that these people drive once to work, and once back in a day, and that's it.
(301,000,000 * .25) * 2
Now let's take your failure rate of 0.001 (99.9% success)
(301,000,000 * .25) * 2 * 0.001
That leaves 150,500 instances where a car refuses to turn on because it claims the sober driver is drunk.
For 150 instances a day (of the underestimate of 25% of pop. driving) it will take three or more tests to start the car, assuming the software doesn't lock you out for, say, twelve hours.
99.99999% would still leave 15 malfunctions in cars a day.
What if you pop the clutch and your car stalls in traffic? Should you have to convince your own car you're not drunk? What if you've had two drinks, got out of the bar, and your father falls to the ground suffering from a heart attack? The hospital isn't far away, your car is right there, yet you can't drive it and save his life because you had two beers.
Better yet, should your car have to test you if you have already vowed to never consume alcohol?
Listen. I completely agree, drunk driving sucks. But you aren't going to solve a problem by throwing technology and money at it. Perhaps proper education of children on the subject instead of scare tactics? And proper treatment for those who are alcoholics.
I'll say that nothing is 100% reliable.
How about the government introduce forcefield technology instead?
Hey BUDDY! Yeah you, over there! I'll give you 20 bucks to blow in this deal for me!
@Stevo
Trust me, that may sound like a great idea now, but I'll be the one chuckling in the jury at your sexual harassment trial.
Flashpoint,
No, they can't. You're wrong. With the aide of technology, we can also install mandatory breathalysers in on front doors in homes to prevent public drunkenness. We can have government-mandated robots perform cavity searches before you leave your house to make sure you aren't carrying drugs. Hell, let's have technology kill all embryos that might carry genes for disabilities? (Oh wait, that's already about to happen over in the UK).
Technology meant to invade people's lives "for the good of society" instead of genuinely aide people's lives is ridiculous. I wish people would back off and worry about their own lives.
I like the education instead of "intervention" argument-
why not just educate people not to steal cars instead of putting locks on them?
Suppose while walking down the street, one of your friend's has to go to the doctor- but you don't have time for an ambulance to arrive? Surely it would be okay to use a car to get the person to the doctor. In the same way it would be okay to put someone else's life in jeopardy so you can perform a favor?
sorry about the spelling- reading too many unedited postings has that effect.
sorry about the spelling- reading too many unedited posting has that effect.
What if you're riding with Nicole Richie and Tara Reid. Together those two can't contain more liquid than a bottle of Mountain Dew.
Nicole Richie is pregnant, right? I imagine she's well bloated by now. And she should have enough water and blood for the two of them.
Oh, I'm sure they are plenty full of liquid. But alchol and "other substances" don't count.
If the camera was self-aware, I bet it would be thinking "There is only one puny meatbag in this car!" or something like that. Yeah.
Um, this obviously could be used to prevent people from illegally crossing through the boarder of the southern US, if someone is hiding in a car. That seems like a better application to me than merely detecting HOV offenders. No?
My thought as well... forget the stupid car pool lane....
And living in a state like Arizona where that is such a constant struggle, I totally see your point. The only problem though, is that we have these sorts of technologies, yet the government tends to use them in ways that aren't nearly as beneficial as others could be.
I won't say don't use this on HOV offender by any means though, just that you're right and that they should adopt this to border patrol, but probably won't for years to come. If ever, seeing as how our elected political heroes, 'pres candidates', want to give all illegal aliens licenses and what-not.
Strangeburn:
The drivers license issue isn't quite as simple as it's made out to be. If an illegal alien doesn't have a license, they can't have insurance. Would you rethink the issue if you were rear-ended by an uninsured illegal? Granted, many illegals won't get insurance, but if even 10% do it will save people hundreds of thousands, probably even millions of dollars a year on car repair bills that they should not have to pay for.
There are also extremely strong national security arguments for giving drivers licenses illegal aliens. See http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/02/giving_drivers.html for details.
Exactly, it's designed for fascist not for carpool checking.
I'm gonna comment with what I uttered when I read the topic of the article:
What the fuck??
one a them really big dogs would count as a child
This sounds to me like a case of spending a fortune to go after a small number of violators. Its the same thinking that leads us (as a society) to spend billions on DRM which raises the cost and complexity of purchased media content to the point where people are much more likely to work to circumvent it and copy.
A human trait (also found in other primates) is an extreme sensitivity to 'being cheated'. This is what causes us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to stop 100 violators a day -- something which doesn't actually change traffic patterns.
A much more effective approach is simple to make the penalty for being caught very high. Call it what it is, "Fraud" or "Tax Evasion". Prosecute it as such with all the inherent penalties, and you only need to catch two or three in a year to have a much bigger impact.
But this is exactly what the RIAA gets criticized for (probably rightly so).
Why not just fuck those carpool lanes altogether? I can't stand them, here everyone is jammed into two stinking lanes going 1mph and there are maybe a car or two in a carpool lane. If all 3 lanes were for everyone there ought to be less traffic. On the other hand, perhaps government should rather enforce house zoning better so we don't end up with stinking overpopulation and builders opting to pay the measly fine and build wherever anyway.
I'm 100% with Andrew on this...
weird :)
weird :)
I claim a rate of 99.9% because 100% is NEVER possible.
Keep in mind, Airbags have the same rate and you don't see Airbags exploding in people's faces unless the car is damaged.
As for EDUCATION - so much drinking goes on in campuses and around schools that education is irrelevant. Also keep in mind NOT EVERYONE gets an education in America. Take a look at college/HS dropout rates.
I like how Engadget, if there's ever a post about the UK, will include a picture of the queen or make a statement about how the UK is a police state and how 'big brother' watches us. It does get a bit boring and repetitive, guys...
It doesn't stop it being true, though...
B'stard facists.