on the one hand, i take the position that this reafirms why no one trusts wireless. theres always ways to screw with it. more security just means it takes more sofphisticated hackers, but very little is impossible.
on the other hand I like to take the view that the key, regardless of the technology, represents a physically barrier that once breached, shows that THEFT has now taken place. so what if the key is easily bypassed. thats what insurance is for. and if its to easily bypassed, thats what my taser is for.
look at the most common denominator, how hard is it to put your fist(or foot for you wussys) through a side window. thats the lowest common denominator.
1 comment:
on the one hand, i take the position that this reafirms why no one trusts wireless. theres always ways to screw with it. more security just means it takes more sofphisticated hackers, but very little is impossible.
on the other hand I like to take the view that the key, regardless of the technology, represents a physically barrier that once breached, shows that THEFT has now taken place. so what if the key is easily bypassed. thats what insurance is for. and if its to easily bypassed, thats what my taser is for.
look at the most common denominator, how hard is it to put your fist(or foot for you wussys) through a side window. thats the lowest common denominator.
Post a Comment