mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: mgs@autox.team.net digest #13 Sun Jun 22 12:12:25 MDT 1997

To: mgs@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: mgs@autox.team.net digest #13 Sun Jun 22 12:12:25 MDT 1997
From: "Scott Gardner" <gardner@lwcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 02:59:11 +0000
>> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 08:43:18 -0500
> From: Jay Quinn <jpquinn@cyberramp.net>
> Subject: Re: Scumbags
> 
> I thought I remember someone saying that the Car 
> Alarm sound is nothing more thatn the modern Urban 
> Cricket chirping.
> 
> In my opinion, they have become less effective because 
> everyone has one, they all go off with lots of flase 
> alarms, and scumbags have become more sophicticated 
> in disarming them.
> 
I agree that blaring car alarms have become pretty much ubiquitous 
these days, but I still think that given the choice between breaking 
into a car with an alarm and one without one, a thied will take the 
unprotected one any day.  This is assuming, of course, that a 
"contract" for your particular car, or one very like it, isn't 
involved.  If a disreputable body shop has let a thief know he will 
pay big bucks for some '48 Fudderpuck parts, and that's what you 
drive, then stand by, there's not much you can do.
        On that note, alarm companies have made big noises about 32-bit 
transmitter codes, shifting codes, etc, in an effort to defeat 
thieves with "code-grabbers" and broadband transmitters, but I have 
yet to hear of any cases actually involving these pieces of high-tech 
wizardry.  Both times I've had cars broken into, they've been 
"smash-and-grab" type operations, by people who obviously didn't know 
what they were stealing, or they'd have taken more care to make sure 
they got off with all the necessary pieces of the stereo.

Scott Gardner
gardner@lwcomm.com
www.lwcomm.com/~gardner

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: mgs@autox.team.net digest #13 Sun Jun 22 12:12:25 MDT 1997, Scott Gardner <=