Re: Beware of high tech running amok

In article
<34b87ba9-c84f-4a0d-a38e-856539135902@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ed
Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:02 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <rbsas356ecr4p71ih7jcn8j061bhkfc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Scott in SoCal
wrote:
> 
>>
>> How many times
>> have I made something up out of the blue scott? ZERO. Ya think there
>> would be just a little respect.
 
> LOL.  That's reason you don't get respect.  If the conclusions you
> reached made sense from the data you presented, you *would* get
> respect.

You mean like the 85th percentile speed limit and other well sup****ted 
contrarian to the general population items that the majority of the 
regulars of r.a.d. know to be true?  The problem isn't my conclusions, 
rather its that certain people, namely you Ed, refuse to have the same 
open mind to the facts as they do with the 85th percentile speed limit. 
After all, conventional thought is slow is safe, speed kills. You might 
consider that if you've been fed lies in one area you might want to check 
the underlying facts in other areas to see if you've been lied to there 
as well. But nahh.... that's kooky... best for you to stick your head in 
the sand and believe what the TV tells you.... Just insult me and it will 
go away. 

Anyway, what's my claim here, that cars even with these passive 
anti-theft systems can be stolen vs. scott's claim that that the cars are 
theft proof and it's my conclusion that is suspect? lol. Like all 
anti-theft systems it just makes it different or take longer. 

> Have you ever pondered for a moment why you get "BS!" called on you so
> often?

And then I dish out the cites and then either silence or insults follow. 
If you had an open mind and bothered to expand your horizons a bit you'd 
see that the 'speed kills' idiotcy is just one grain of sand on the beach 
of similiar common thought that is just plain wrong. 

> As far as never making anything up - ROTFLMAO.

Prove it. 

Last time I heard a peep out of you Ed you were telling me I just 'made 
up' administrative courts. I dished off a bunch of cites and you crawled 
back under your bridge. 

BTW, here ya go, a little googling and I found the article: 

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.08/carkey.html

"Like the Pass Key, the new RFID technology was extremely effective for a 
few years. Thefts of the 1997 Ford Mustang, one of the first US cars with 
a transponder, dropped 70 percent from 1995 levels. (The rest were 
attributed to tow-aways and stolen keys.) Insurance firms were elated. 
..There was -pretty much a God-given belief that if a car with a 
transponder was stolen, the owner was sunk,. says Larry Burzynski, a 
senior special agent with the National Insurance Crime Bureau. .The 
perception was that the theft had to be owner involvement.. Insurers 
pressed auto-makers to deploy the technology, and even now the most 
frequently stolen cars in the US were built before the transponder era . 
like the .95 Civic and the .89 Camry. Newer models make the list only 
when manu-facturers forgo transponders.

TO car thieves, smart keys became little more than the latest challenge. 
By 2000, forensic locksmiths like Painter were demonstrating for juries 
how crooks were getting past the transponders in Fords: Pop the hood and 
pull a certain fuse from the power relay center in the upper left corner. 
Zap, you.re in.

Meanwhile, transponder-equipped cars were being resold to new owners, and 
keys were disappearing behind couch cu****ons. Auto-repair supply and 
locksmithing companies started selling devices like the Code-Seeker and 
the T-Code, which allow anyone to create a new set of keys for a 
fixed-code transponder-equipped car. The Jet Smart Clone (catchphrase: 
..Clone the uncloneable!.) duplicates any fixed-code RFID chip by reading 
its code and imprinting it onto the blank chip of a new key with the same 
mechanical cut."


Now go crawl back under your bridge.