In article <34b87ba9-c84f-4a0d-a38e-856539135902.TakeThisOut@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:02 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <rbsas356ecr4p71ih7jcn8j061bhkfc....TakeThisOut@4ax.com>, 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 supported
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 cushions. 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.
>> Stay informed about: Beware of high tech running amok 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
