Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #218286 > unrolled thread

Chip shortage--use relays

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Chip shortage--use relays undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-07 12:28 -0700
    Re: Chip shortage--use relays Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-07-07 20:48 +0100
      Re: Chip shortage--use relays Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-07-07 16:40 -0400
        Re: Chip shortage--use relays undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:25 -0700
        Re: Chip shortage--use relays antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-13 23:28 +0000
          Re: Chip shortage--use relays scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-14 00:22 +0000
            Re: Chip shortage--use relays Freddy1X <freddy1X@indyX.netX> - 2021-07-13 21:00 -0400
            Re: Chip shortage--use relays Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-07-14 02:41 -0300
              Re: Chip shortage--use relays J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-14 05:57 -0400
          Re: Chip shortage--use relays Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-07-14 18:53 -0400
    Re: Chip shortage--use relays Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-07 20:42 +0100
      Re: Chip shortage--use relays Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 23:25 -0700
        Re: Chip shortage--use relays undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-13 15:23 -0700
          Re: Chip shortage--use relays Robert Netzlof <rnetzlof@gmail.com> - 2021-07-14 12:43 -0700
            Re: Chip shortage--use relays undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-16 11:10 -0700
    Re: Chip shortage--use relays antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-13 23:17 +0000
      Re: Chip shortage--use relays Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-07-13 19:28 -0400
        Re: Chip shortage--use relays antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2021-07-14 11:33 +0000
      Re: Chip shortage--use relays gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-14 13:06 +0100
      Re: Chip shortage--use relays drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2021-08-17 12:47 -0500
        Re: Chip shortage--use relays Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-08-17 20:27 +0100
    Re: Chip shortage--use relays Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-14 10:12 -0700
      Re: Chip shortage--use relays Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-14 19:29 +0100
      Re: Chip shortage--use relays Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-14 18:40 +0000
        Re: Chip shortage--use relays Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-07-14 16:47 -0300
          Re: Chip shortage--use relays Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-14 18:18 -0700
            Re: Chip shortage--use relays Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-07-16 02:26 -0300
          Re: Chip shortage--use relays greymaus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2021-07-15 19:36 +0000
        Re: Chip shortage--use relays "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-ugr-this> - 2021-07-15 07:27 -0700
          Re: Chip shortage--use relays Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-15 14:04 -0700
            Re: Chip shortage--use relays Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-16 00:00 +0000
              Re: Chip shortage--use relays Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-07-15 20:43 -0400
                Re: Chip shortage--use relays Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-16 10:56 -0700
              Re: Chip shortage--use relays songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-07-15 20:46 -0400
              Re: Chip shortage--use relays Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-07-16 02:53 -0300
                Re: Chip shortage--use relays Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-07-16 08:08 -0400
                  Re: Chip shortage--use relays gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-16 13:20 +0100
                    Re: Chip shortage--use relays Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-07-16 16:27 -0400
                  Re: Chip shortage--use relays Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-16 16:32 +0000
                    Re: Chip shortage--use relays Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-07-16 16:49 +0000
                      Re: Chip shortage--use relays Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-16 19:14 -0400
                    Re: Chip shortage--use relays undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-16 11:54 -0700
                      Re: Chip shortage--use relays Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-16 22:40 +0000
                    Re: Chip shortage--use relays Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2021-07-16 17:28 -0300
                      Re: Chip shortage--use relays Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-16 22:40 +0000
                        Re: Chip shortage--use relays undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 11:41 -0700
                      Re: Chip shortage--use relays "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-odi-this> - 2021-07-17 07:18 -0700
                  Re: Chip shortage--use relays Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-16 10:56 -0700
                    Re: Chip shortage--use relays undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-16 11:51 -0700
                    Re: Chip shortage--use relays usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2021-07-16 19:51 +0000
                      Re: Chip shortage--use relays Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-17 07:06 -0700
                        Re: Chip shortage--use relays scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-17 14:42 +0000
                          Re: Chip shortage--use relays Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-17 17:29 +0100
                            Re: Chip shortage--use relays greymaus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2021-07-18 07:52 +0000
                            Re: Chip shortage--use relays undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 11:47 -0700
                              Re: Chip shortage--use relays Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-20 20:13 +0100
                        Re: Chip shortage--use relays usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2021-07-17 20:39 +0000
                          Re: Chip shortage--use relays Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-18 06:28 +0100
                            Re: Chip shortage--use relays Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-18 07:46 -0700
                          Re: Chip shortage--use relays Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-18 07:45 -0700
                            Re: Chip shortage--use relays J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 11:15 -0400
                            Re: Chip shortage--use relays Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 11:18 -0400
                              Re: Chip shortage--use relays J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 14:08 -0400
                                Re: Chip shortage--use relays John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-18 19:41 +0000
                                  Re: Chip shortage--use relays J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 16:08 -0400
                                Re: Chip shortage--use relays Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 16:43 -0400
                                Re: Chip shortage--use relays scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-18 23:19 +0000
                                Re: Chip shortage--use relays "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-r25-this> - 2021-07-19 08:26 -0700
                                  Re: Chip shortage--use relays scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-19 16:50 +0000
                                    Re: Chip shortage--use relays Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-19 18:13 +0100
                                      Re: Chip shortage--use relays scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-19 18:51 +0000
                                      Re: Chip shortage--use relays usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2021-07-20 18:05 +0000
                                    Re: Chip shortage--use relays "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-f2b-this> - 2021-07-20 07:36 -0700
                                      Re: Chip shortage--use relays scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-20 16:17 +0000
                                  Re: Chip shortage--use relays Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2021-07-19 20:13 +0000
                          Re: Chip shortage--use relays Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-18 16:30 -0700
                        Re: Chip shortage--use relays Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2021-07-18 01:53 -0500
                          Re: Chip shortage--use relays Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-07-18 08:25 -0600
                        Re: Chip shortage--use relays undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 11:45 -0700
                          Re: Chip shortage--use relays Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2021-07-21 17:30 -0500
                            Re: Chip shortage--use relays greymaus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2021-07-22 10:46 +0000
        Re: Chip shortage--use relays Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2021-07-15 11:09 -0700
          Re: Chip shortage--use relays cmadams@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) - 2021-07-15 22:07 -0500
        Re: Chip shortage--use relays undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-16 11:09 -0700
          Re: Chip shortage--use relays J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-16 17:25 -0400
            Re: Chip shortage--use relays Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-17 07:09 -0700
              Re: Chip shortage--use relays Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-17 07:11 -0700
              Re: Chip shortage--use relays J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-07-17 11:48 -0400
        Re: Chip shortage--use relays undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-20 11:52 -0700
      Re: Chip shortage--use relays undefined Hancock-4 <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> - 2021-07-16 11:49 -0700
    Re: Chip shortage--use relays John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2021-07-16 01:51 +0000

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#218455

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 07:45:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 2:39:44 PM UTC-6, Questor wrote:
>>  a big problem these days is catalytic converter thefts.
>
>Yes. We had a rash of them here in Edmonton.
>
>Of course, catalytic converters are totally unnecessary, except in
>a few areas vulnerable to smog. So this is the fault of inane
>government regulation.

They are advantageous in that they allow engines to be tuned for
performance instead of emissions.  Try one of the wheezing invalids of
the late pre-catalytic-converter era to see how that works out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218456

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

> On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 2:39:44 PM UTC-6, Questor wrote:
>>  a big problem these days is catalytic converter thefts.
>
> Yes. We had a rash of them here in Edmonton.
>
> Of course, catalytic converters are totally unnecessary, except in
> a few areas vulnerable to smog. So this is the fault of inane
> government regulation.

Those few areas should just learn to live with the problem.

Not that I give any credence to your claim.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218458

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 11:18:28 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>
>> On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 2:39:44 PM UTC-6, Questor wrote:
>>>  a big problem these days is catalytic converter thefts.
>>
>> Yes. We had a rash of them here in Edmonton.
>>
>> Of course, catalytic converters are totally unnecessary, except in
>> a few areas vulnerable to smog. So this is the fault of inane
>> government regulation.
>
>Those few areas should just learn to live with the problem.
>
>Not that I give any credence to your claim.

The simplest solution to Los Angeles smog problem is to just warm the
globe enough to flood the place out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218459

According to J. Clarke  <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>:
>>> Of course, catalytic converters are totally unnecessary, except in
>>> a few areas vulnerable to smog. So this is the fault of inane
>>> government regulation.
>>
>>Those few areas should just learn to live with the problem.
>>
>>Not that I give any credence to your claim.
>
>The simplest solution to Los Angeles smog problem is to just warm the
>globe enough to flood the place out.

It seems more likely it'll burn to the ground first.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218460

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 19:41:12 -0000 (UTC), John Levine
<johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>According to J. Clarke  <jclarke.873638@gmail.com>:
>>>> Of course, catalytic converters are totally unnecessary, except in
>>>> a few areas vulnerable to smog. So this is the fault of inane
>>>> government regulation.
>>>
>>>Those few areas should just learn to live with the problem.
>>>
>>>Not that I give any credence to your claim.
>>
>>The simplest solution to Los Angeles smog problem is to just warm the
>>globe enough to flood the place out.
>
>It seems more likely it'll burn to the ground first.

Yeah, but if it's flooded out it's a lot harder to rebuild.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218461

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 11:18:28 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 2:39:44 PM UTC-6, Questor wrote:
>>>>  a big problem these days is catalytic converter thefts.
>>>
>>> Yes. We had a rash of them here in Edmonton.
>>>
>>> Of course, catalytic converters are totally unnecessary, except in
>>> a few areas vulnerable to smog. So this is the fault of inane
>>> government regulation.
>>
>>Those few areas should just learn to live with the problem.
>>
>>Not that I give any credence to your claim.
>
> The simplest solution to Los Angeles smog problem is to just warm the
> globe enough to flood the place out.

Average elevation 285ft.  That kind of sea level rise might cause other
problems.  Not sure how simple it would be.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218462

J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 11:18:28 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 2:39:44 PM UTC-6, Questor wrote:
>>>>  a big problem these days is catalytic converter thefts.
>>>
>>> Yes. We had a rash of them here in Edmonton.
>>>
>>> Of course, catalytic converters are totally unnecessary, except in
>>> a few areas vulnerable to smog. So this is the fault of inane
>>> government regulation.
>>
>>Those few areas should just learn to live with the problem.
>>
>>Not that I give any credence to your claim.
>
>The simplest solution to Los Angeles smog problem is to just warm the
>globe enough to flood the place out.

And you wonder why people don't like you.

FYI, downtown LA is at 305 ft. ASL, with vast portions
of the basin at higher elevations, and the beach communities
(where all the wealthy folks live) closer to sea level.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218465

  To: J. Clarke
-=> J. Clarke wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-

 JC> The simplest solution to Los Angeles smog problem is to just warm the
 JC> globe enough to flood the place out.

According to John Carpenter, the next big earthquake will separate LA from 
the west coast. They could become their own country!

         kurt weiske | kweiske at realitycheckbbs dot org
                     | http://realitycheckbbs.org
                     | 1:218/700@fidonet

			


... Emphasize differences
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
--- Synchronet 3.19a-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
 *  realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218466

"Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-r25-this> writes:
>  To: J. Clarke
>-=> J. Clarke wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
>
> JC> The simplest solution to Los Angeles smog problem is to just warm the
> JC> globe enough to flood the place out.
>
>According to John Carpenter, the next big earthquake will separate LA from 
>the west coast. They could become their own country!
>

Of course, carpenter writes fiction.

The fault is a strike-slip fault, so LA will just move north a few
inches.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218467

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 16:50:39 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> The fault is a strike-slip fault, so LA will just move north a few
> inches.

	So all the stuff I heard years ago about it being poised to let go
completely making half of California fall off the continent was nonsense ?

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218469

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 16:50:39 GMT
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> The fault is a strike-slip fault, so LA will just move north a few
>> inches.
>
>	So all the stuff I heard years ago about it being poised to let go
>completely making half of California fall off the continent was nonsense ?

Yup.   LA will end up north of San Francisco sometime in the next
twenty million years.   The Pacific plate is pushing up under
the North American plate (hence the coastal mountain ranges).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218473

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:13:31 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 16:50:39 GMT
>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>
>> The fault is a strike-slip fault, so LA will just move north a few
>> inches.
>
>So all the stuff I heard years ago about it being poised to let go
>completely making half of California fall off the continent was nonsense ?

They'll get the last laugh when everything East of the San Andreas Fault falls
into the Atlantic Ocean.


Actually, the current geologic theory is something of the opposite.  It is
believed that California is the result of several island chains being driven
into the North American continent, the edge of which was much farther East
millions of years ago.  The resulting accretion eventually became Nevada and
then California; the geologic makeup of the latter is especially varied due to
its multiple sources.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218471

  To: scott
-=> scott wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-

 sc> Of course, carpenter writes fiction.

 sc> The fault is a strike-slip fault, so LA will just move north a few
 sc> inches.

That'll shorten the drive to Disneyland.

         kurt weiske | kweiske at realitycheckbbs dot org
                     | http://realitycheckbbs.org
                     | 1:218/700@fidonet

		
... Powered By Celeron (Tualatin). Engineered for the future.
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
--- Synchronet 3.19a-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
 *  realitycheckBBS - Aptos, CA - telnet://realitycheckbbs.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218472

"Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-f2b-this> writes:
>  To: scott
>-=> scott wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
>
> sc> Of course, carpenter writes fiction.
>
> sc> The fault is a strike-slip fault, so LA will just move north a few
> sc> inches.
>
>That'll shorten the drive to Disneyland.
>
>         kurt weiske | kweiske at realitycheckbbs dot org
>                     | http://realitycheckbbs.org
>                     | 1:218/700@fidonet

In a few million years, it will pass Aptos, which is just
over the hill from here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218470

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 08:26:00 -0700, Kurt Weiske wrote:

> According to John Carpenter, the next big earthquake will separate LA
> from the west coast. They could become their own country!

Wouldn't that leave a dark scar?



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218463

Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 07:06:17 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-6, Questor wrote:
>>> Those vent windows were notoriously easy to force open, which in turn made it 
>>> easy to snake something through them and open the door. There's a good reason 
>>> why cars no longer have them -- they facilitated auto break-ins and theft.
>> 
>> Surely the design could have been modified so that it would be impossible to force
>> them open without either breaking the glass or ripping off the metal of the door?
> 
> Perhaps.  I'm not a mechanical engineer, so I don't know much about what would
> be cheap and easy to do.  (And if it's not cheap and easy, it's not going to be
> done across many thousands of cars.)  It seems to me that the nature of the
> vent -- the vertical pivot, a short and simple mechanism -- lends itself to this
> kind of exploit.
> 
> 
>> But in any case, that's not a good reason. Surely the appropriate solution to a
>> problem like that, which imposes the costs where they belong - on dishonest
>> automobile thieves, not honest car owners - would be to increase penalties for
>> car theft so that those penalties would work as a successful deterrent.
> 
> What a naive, idealistic -- and punitive point of view.  You seem to be unaware
> of just how quickly and easily a reasonably skilled thief can break into a car
> through a vent window.  The correct unit of time to use is seconds, not minutes.
> Couple that with the obvious impossibility of patrolling or monitoring even a
> majority of cars.  Unless they get caught in the act, thieves breaking into cars
> rarely get caught, so the risk/reward ratio for them is generally favorable.
> 
> We should be able to leave our doors unlocked too -- but we don't, because
> simply locking a door is a more effective deterrent than raising the penalties
> for burglary.  If vent windows are a serious vulnerability, then eliminating
> them will prevent more break-ins than harsher penalties.  This goes along with
> other common sense precautions, such as not leaving any valuables in your car.
> 
> Aside:  Years ago I had a old, bulky Telefunken portable multi-band radio that I
> kept in my car so I could listen to FM stations, as the car was not so equipped.
> One night thieves broke into my car, ostensibly to steal it, but when they got
> their hands on it they realized it wasn't worth taking.  In the morning I found
> my car had been broken into, but nothing was taken -- they left the radio on the
> front seat.
> 

This happened to us last year. Papers taken out of the glove box, but
nothing worth stealing.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218450

On 7/17/2021 9:06 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-6, Questor wrote:
> 
>> Those vent windows were notoriously easy to force open, which in turn made it
>> easy to snake something through them and open the door. There's a good reason
>> why cars no longer have them -- they facilitated auto break-ins and theft.
> 
> Surely the design could have been modified so that it would be impossible to force
> them open without either breaking the glass or ripping off the metal of the door?
> 
> But in any case, that's not a good reason. Surely the appropriate solution to a
> problem like that, which imposes the costs where they belong - on dishonest
> automobile thieves, not honest car owners - would be to increase penalties for
> car theft so that those penalties would work as a successful deterrent.
> 
> We haven't had any nuclear wars, so what I mean by a "successful deterrent" is
> one that results in us not having any car thefts for a similar length of time.
> 
> Of course, perhaps one stupid person will have to steal a car, so that people can
> actually see the penalty carried out for it to have the required emotional impact
> to achieve the desired result.
> 
> Of course, there's that pesky Eighth Amendment...
> 
> John Savard
> 
I expect the real reason was to save the manufacturer money. Several 
parts (divider strip, weatherstripping, glass, hinges) plus the labor 
to install them, all at a cost beyond just having a slightly bigger 
piece of window glass. There is probably a tiny aerodynamic 
disadvantage to vent windows as well (less smooth), for that extra 
0.01 mpg gain..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218452

Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes:

> On 7/17/2021 9:06 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-6, Questor wrote:
>> 
>>> Those vent windows were notoriously easy to force open, which in turn made it
>>> easy to snake something through them and open the door. There's a good reason
>>> why cars no longer have them -- they facilitated auto break-ins and
>>> theft.

There were enough easy ways to break in to a vehicle in those days (my
late lamented 1978 Newport, a four door hardtop,  had no frames around
the windows...) that I doubt it was a serious factor in getting rid of
vent windows.

>> Surely the design could have been modified so that it would be
>> impossible to force
>> them open without either breaking the glass or ripping off the metal of the door?
>> But in any case, that's not a good reason. Surely the appropriate
>> solution to a
>> problem like that, which imposes the costs where they belong - on dishonest
>> automobile thieves, not honest car owners - would be to increase penalties for
>> car theft so that those penalties would work as a successful deterrent.
>> We haven't had any nuclear wars, so what I mean by a "successful
>> deterrent" is
>> one that results in us not having any car thefts for a similar length of time.
>> Of course, perhaps one stupid person will have to steal a car, so
>> that people can
>> actually see the penalty carried out for it to have the required emotional impact
>> to achieve the desired result.
>> Of course, there's that pesky Eighth Amendment...
>> John Savard
>> 
> I expect the real reason was to save the manufacturer money. Several
> parts (divider strip, weatherstripping, glass, hinges) plus the labor 
> to install them, all at a cost beyond just having a slightly bigger
> piece of window glass. There is probably a tiny aerodynamic 
> disadvantage to vent windows as well (less smooth), for that extra
> 0.01 mpg gain..

Also, I expect demand for them has dropped to near zero with the decline
of smoking.  Just as the cigaret lighters are now "power outlets" with
no lighter and ashtrays are extra cost options, the cost of engineering
and tooling for vent windows wouldn't come close to breaking even.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218475

On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 10:06:18 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:


> Of course, perhaps one stupid person will have to steal a car, so that people can 
> actually see the penalty carried out for it to have the required emotional impact 
> to achieve the desired result. 

Heavy deterrents don't work by themselves to discourage crime.  First, thieves 
need to know there's a high probability they'll be caught and sent to jail for a while.
At present, they know the odds are well in their favor.

Second, the underlying motivations must be addressed.  A drug addict doesn't
think nor care, he needs to steal for his fix.  Sadly, a lot of criminals today just
act on stupid impulse, not thinking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#218496

On 7/20/2021 1:45 PM, undefined Hancock-4 wrote:
> On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 10:06:18 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> 
> 
>> Of course, perhaps one stupid person will have to steal a car, so that people can
>> actually see the penalty carried out for it to have the required emotional impact
>> to achieve the desired result.
> 
> Heavy deterrents don't work by themselves to discourage crime.  First, thieves
> need to know there's a high probability they'll be caught and sent to jail for a while.
> At present, they know the odds are well in their favor.
> 
> Second, the underlying motivations must be addressed.  A drug addict doesn't
> think nor care, he needs to steal for his fix.  Sadly, a lot of criminals today just
> act on stupid impulse, not thinking.
> 
In England, pickpockets (a hanging offense) used to work the crowds 
who assembled to watch hangings.

Nobody thinks he's going to get caught, whether it's murderers, 
price-fixers, politicians, or jaywalkers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web