"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...

"Secular Humorist" wrote in message
...
On 9/21/10 12:27 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:37:45 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:03:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

While it's probably true that no trigger lock is 100% foolproof,
it's also
true that most criminals who want to use a gun aren't bright
enough to do
the disassembly, etc., to get it to work.

That would be a bad assumption. Every criminal on the street may not
know how to take a gun apart and fix it but it really only takes a
few
to turn useless "locked" guns into an unlocked ones and sell it.
These
are the same ones who know how to unlock cell phones, make credit
card
skimmers and build a very good silencer from a half dozen .5l water
bottles or a piece of PVC pipe and a hand full of milk bottle caps.

The biggest problem with engineers is they assume the person
defeating
their next big thing will have to work as hard and defeat it the same
way they built it. They get embarrassed when a very simple trick gets
around a very complicated device.
Just think about that high tech bicycle lock that you could open with
the barrel of a BIC pen. Most locks can be picked with a paper clip
and something to put tension on the lock (Ball point pen ?) Kids
learn how to do this in elementary or middle school these days. I
didn't learn until my sophomore year of high school. ;-)

You just pretty much confirmed it that it is a valid assumption.
You're
claiming equivalency of high tech kids unlocking phones to criminals
disabling trigger locks?? Talk about false equivalency. Also,
unlocking a
phone isn't a criminal act typically.



I wonder about that.

I wondered too. It is certainly a breach of contract and I would not
bet some places have made it illegal, just like hacking a cable or
satellite box is illegal. The point was, underestimating the
intelligence of criminals bites us in the ass every time we do it and
usually the actual hack is so simple it makes us wonder why we trusted
the technology in the first place. Once someone figures it out, it
shows up on you tube within an hour.
There is a link for the "5 minute $5 shotgun" on the home repair NG as
we speak. It is crude but it goes bang every time.

If it is, I'd be pretty surprised. Lots and lots of people jailbreak
their iPhones. I know someone who did, didn't like the result and
unbroke it.

Yeah, criminals are so smart. Incredibly, a lot end up in jail.
Brilliant lot.




Jailbreaking or rooting a phone is not the same as setting up a phone to
operate over another carrier's signals outside of a contract. The latter
is at the minimum a breach of contract. The former may only just brick
your phone. I've resisted rooting my smart phone. I just don't see any
reason to do it.

There are no legal penalties that I know of for jailbreaking a phone or
using it with a different carrier. People do the latter all the time when
traveling overseas for example... not quite the same thing, but close.



I'm not familiar with thievery of cell phone equipment and services.

What does Jailbreaking, rooting, and bricking mean?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:51:22 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

I'm not familiar with thievery of cell phone equipment and services.

What does Jailbreaking, rooting, and bricking mean?

I am not sure about all of the new phone contracts but there are some
companies that give you a free phone that is locked to their service
if you sign up for a long term contract.
People unlock them and go to another, cheaper service, leaving the
original contractor holding the bag for that phone he expected to
amortize over several years.
Now that money is harder to borrow, these plans may be more
restrictive because this is basically a loan but they used to be real
easy to qualify for.. They loan you the money to buy the phone and you
pay them back a few bucks a month in your phone bill. The locked phone
is the collateral, theoretically useless if you breach the contract.
Of course if they are lost or stolen, unlocking them makes them a
phone again, for drug dealers or anyone else who wants a throwaway
phone.
Back in the analog days, the trick was just cloning the ESN so you
could use a phone on someone elses dime. That got a lot harder to do
on a digital phone but I bet someone has figured it out. I lost
interest when my Moto bag phones stopped working (two with one ESN).

Which has nothing to do with the legality of doing this to a phone... seems
like you've changed the subject.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:52:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:51:22 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote:

I'm not familiar with thievery of cell phone equipment and services.

What does Jailbreaking, rooting, and bricking mean?

I am not sure about all of the new phone contracts but there are some
companies that give you a free phone that is locked to their service
if you sign up for a long term contract.
People unlock them and go to another, cheaper service, leaving the
original contractor holding the bag for that phone he expected to
amortize over several years.
Now that money is harder to borrow, these plans may be more
restrictive because this is basically a loan but they used to be real
easy to qualify for.. They loan you the money to buy the phone and you
pay them back a few bucks a month in your phone bill. The locked phone
is the collateral, theoretically useless if you breach the contract.
Of course if they are lost or stolen, unlocking them makes them a
phone again, for drug dealers or anyone else who wants a throwaway
phone.
Back in the analog days, the trick was just cloning the ESN so you
could use a phone on someone elses dime. That got a lot harder to do
on a digital phone but I bet someone has figured it out. I lost
interest when my Moto bag phones stopped working (two with one ESN).

Which has nothing to do with the legality of doing this to a phone...
seems
like you've changed the subject.


No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not too
bright.

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:55:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not too
bright.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to work on guns, just some
basic mechanical skill. All of that "smart gun" stuff is just added to
a regular gun action and it is not that hard to take it away. In the
end it will always just be pulling in a coil after it does all of
it;'s electronic magic. You just need to find another way to move that
armature or operate that sear and rip all of those electronics out.

Again I will point out, the technology was invented for people who
lose a gun in a fight and don't want to be shot with it right then.
This was coopted by people who did not understand the technology or
the intent.


You might have seen this video before but it seems appropriate to show it when we have a discussion about guns.
Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpURk1E3Q9c

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:55:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not
too
bright.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to work on guns, just some
basic mechanical skill. All of that "smart gun" stuff is just added to
a regular gun action and it is not that hard to take it away. In the
end it will always just be pulling in a coil after it does all of
it;'s electronic magic. You just need to find another way to move that
armature or operate that sear and rip all of those electronics out.

Again I will point out, the technology was invented for people who
lose a gun in a fight and don't want to be shot with it right then.
This was coopted by people who did not understand the technology or
the intent.

I'm sure we'll see those brilliant, average criminals hunkering down in
their fully equipped workshop churning them out by the 1000s.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:55:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not
too
bright.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to work on guns, just some
basic mechanical skill. All of that "smart gun" stuff is just added to
a regular gun action and it is not that hard to take it away. In the
end it will always just be pulling in a coil after it does all of
it;'s electronic magic. You just need to find another way to move that
armature or operate that sear and rip all of those electronics out.

Again I will point out, the technology was invented for people who
lose a gun in a fight and don't want to be shot with it right then.
This was coopted by people who did not understand the technology or
the intent.

I'm sure we'll see those brilliant, average criminals hunkering down in
their fully equipped workshop churning them out by the 1000s.



Again you amaze me with your incoherency.

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:55:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not
too
bright.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to work on guns, just some
basic mechanical skill. All of that "smart gun" stuff is just added to
a regular gun action and it is not that hard to take it away. In the
end it will always just be pulling in a coil after it does all of
it;'s electronic magic. You just need to find another way to move that
armature or operate that sear and rip all of those electronics out.

Again I will point out, the technology was invented for people who
lose a gun in a fight and don't want to be shot with it right then.
This was coopted by people who did not understand the technology or
the intent.

I'm sure we'll see those brilliant, average criminals hunkering down in
their fully equipped workshop churning them out by the 1000s.



Again you amaze me with your incoherency.

Shut up loser. The adults are talking.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:18:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:55:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No the original subject was just whether these people had the ability
to alter things.

The original subject included a false comparison between people altering
their phone vs. modifying guns by common criminals, most of whom are not
too
bright.

It doesn't take that much intelligence to work on guns, just some
basic mechanical skill. All of that "smart gun" stuff is just added to
a regular gun action and it is not that hard to take it away. In the
end it will always just be pulling in a coil after it does all of
it;'s electronic magic. You just need to find another way to move that
armature or operate that sear and rip all of those electronics out.

Again I will point out, the technology was invented for people who
lose a gun in a fight and don't want to be shot with it right then.
This was coopted by people who did not understand the technology or
the intent.

I'm sure we'll see those brilliant, average criminals hunkering down in
their fully equipped workshop churning them out by the 1000s.


I doubt there will be thousands of smart guns sold the be disabled.
Who would actually pay an extra couple hundred dollars for a gun that
might not work when they need them? Police departments, the target
market, has no interest unless the gun fails"on" so all the crook has
to do is take the battery out and the gun goes hot.
The cop on the beat still has no real interest in the technology, it
is just the political bosses.

I believe pretty much the same thing was said of things like computers and
cell phones.

I can't speak for every cop on the beat, but I'm betting most would be
interested in a weapon that can only be fired by the owner.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:21:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I'm sure we'll see those brilliant, average criminals hunkering down in
their fully equipped workshop churning them out by the 1000s.


I doubt there will be thousands of smart guns sold the be disabled.
Who would actually pay an extra couple hundred dollars for a gun that
might not work when they need them? Police departments, the target
market, has no interest unless the gun fails"on" so all the crook has
to do is take the battery out and the gun goes hot.
The cop on the beat still has no real interest in the technology, it
is just the political bosses.

I believe pretty much the same thing was said of things like computers and
cell phones.

I can't speak for every cop on the beat, but I'm betting most would be
interested in a weapon that can only be fired by the owner.


Why would you think that? If you read the articles you get on a "smart
gun" google you see everyone from the NRA to the Violence Policy
Center (an anti gun group) think it is a dumb idea.

Some of the arguments make sense and others don't.

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:21:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I'm sure we'll see those brilliant, average criminals hunkering down in
their fully equipped workshop churning them out by the 1000s.


I doubt there will be thousands of smart guns sold the be disabled.
Who would actually pay an extra couple hundred dollars for a gun that
might not work when they need them? Police departments, the target
market, has no interest unless the gun fails"on" so all the crook has
to do is take the battery out and the gun goes hot.
The cop on the beat still has no real interest in the technology, it
is just the political bosses.

I believe pretty much the same thing was said of things like computers and
cell phones.

I can't speak for every cop on the beat, but I'm betting most would be
interested in a weapon that can only be fired by the owner.


Why would you think that? If you read the articles you get on a "smart
gun" google you see everyone from the NRA to the Violence Policy
Center (an anti gun group) think it is a dumb idea.


Nutcase intuition would be my guess.