| From: | QB1!JRH <QB1!JRH@*******.ATTMAIL.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | <None> |
| Date: | Mon, 21 Mar 1994 20:55:00 GMT |
> Although a corp might use this in its own installations, how
> long do you think they would last in any neighbourhood with a B
> rating or below, especially at night. I don't think many street
> types would appreciate this.
} And in the areas where such security is especially needed, ie
} the Barrens, can you imagine that support needed it even
} install them? The city would have to call in the Metroplex
} Guard just to run cover and keep the denizens from shooting out
} the scanners, and the techies along with them.
OTOH, what's to keep them from "cost reducing" the imager.
Rather than armoring the imager, I imagine that it wouldn't be
too difficult to crank out CCDs tuned to the IR range. Mount the
CCD package on a necessary cpu with lens. For the cost of a
block's worth of armored imagers, you could conceivably make
100,000s of CCDs.
With the size of the package reduced to the size of a pack of
matches (or less), they could be both cheap enough and difficult
enough to find that they could be scattered from the air. Who
cares if only .1% survive when you are dropping tens of
thousands? Shrink the package to the size of a dime, and
survival goes up even further (and thus you need fewer
scattered).
While these micro thermo IDs, would be great for convert
surveilance, I would imagine that there would continue to be a
market for the larger systems for instances in which an obvious
monitoring is desireable (e.g. banks, postal ID stations, etc.)
The function of these depend upon the public taking note of the
system. Even if the guts of the machine were the size of a dime,
the shell of the "camera" would probably continue to be the size
of present cameras simply because the public "expects" it to be
that size.
JR (Holmes)
