Why no remote unlock?

[Robert M. Gary]

I use my plane for family transportation. So the wife and kids don't
see a lot of difference between running out to the plane to go to
Mexico vs. going out to the car. So when the family runs out ahead and
we have the car I hit the remote unlock. The other day my wife asked
why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock. When you think about it;
why not have the same ease-of-use items in the plane as the car.

-robert (greetings from remote Mexico)

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> I use my plane for family transportation. So the wife and kids don't
> see a lot of difference between running out to the plane to go to
> Mexico vs. going out to the car. So when the family runs out ahead and
> we have the car I hit the remote unlock. The other day my wife asked
> why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock. When you think about it;
> why not have the same ease-of-use items in the plane as the car.

Given a car entertainment system can be had for about $100 and the
equivelant certified for aircraft installation costs $3000, what do
you think remote controlled doors certified for an airplane would cost?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[TheSmokingGnu]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> When you think about it;
> why not have the same ease-of-use items in the plane as the car.

Weight. Every pound you spend on a transmitter/computer, door motors,
mechanisms, entertainment systems, A/C, and/or My Little Pony Stickers
and so forth is another pound of fuel you can't carry, another pound of
person you can't carry, another pound of luggage you can't carry.

TheSmokingGnu

[Tina]

Most cars are already wired for electrically controlled door locks --
adding a simple radio controlled switch to operate in parallel with
the usual switches is easy. Most GA airplanes do not have the door
locks electrically controlled, as best I know. You're talking
extensive and expensive modifications -- just buy an extra key or two.

What's really needed are fancy wheel covers, and a rear view mirror
where we can hang fuzzy dice.

.



On Mar 17, 1:08*am, TheSmokingGnu
> wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > When you think about it;
> > why not have the same ease-of-use items in the plane as the car.
>
> Weight. Every pound you spend on a transmitter/computer, door motors,
> mechanisms, entertainment systems, A/C, and/or My Little Pony Stickers
> and so forth is another pound of fuel you can't carry, another pound of
> person you can't carry, another pound of luggage you can't carry.
>
> TheSmokingGnu

[Dan[_10_]]

> > wrote:

> > > When you think about it;
> > > why not have the same ease-of-use items in the plane as the car.

Remote starter could be messy.



Dan Mc

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I use my plane for family transportation. So the wife and kids don't
> see a lot of difference between running out to the plane to go to
> Mexico vs. going out to the car. So when the family runs out ahead and
> we have the car I hit the remote unlock. The other day my wife asked
> why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock. When you think about it;
> why not have the same ease-of-use items in the plane as the car.
>
> -robert (greetings from remote Mexico)


Weight.

[gatt[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
>I use my plane for family transportation. So the wife and kids don't
> see a lot of difference between running out to the plane to go to
> Mexico vs. going out to the car. So when the family runs out ahead and
> we have the car I hit the remote unlock. The other day my wife asked
> why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock. When you think about it;
> why not have the same ease-of-use items in the plane as the car.


The last two Cessna locks I've encountered could be unlocked by sticking
your thumb over the keyhole and turning it. Perhaps before the can get to
remote-unlock, they can make locks that actually work. The FBO owner says
"Don't worry about it. If somebody wants to break into the plane they will
anyway."

Hmm.

-c

[Ash Wyllie]

Gig 601XL Builder opined

>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> I use my plane for family transportation. So the wife and kids don't
>> see a lot of difference between running out to the plane to go to
>> Mexico vs. going out to the car. So when the family runs out ahead and
>> we have the car I hit the remote unlock. The other day my wife asked
>> why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock. When you think about it;
>> why not have the same ease-of-use items in the plane as the car.
>>
>> -robert (greetings from remote Mexico)


>Weight.

TSA

Can you imagine the uproar if people learned that airplanes could be unlocked
from a distance?

-ash
Cthulhu in 2008!
Vote the greater evil.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Ash Wyllie wrote:

>
>> Weight.
>
> TSA
>
> Can you imagine the uproar if people learned that airplanes could be unlocked
> from a distance?
>

TSA could care less.

[Dallas]

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:14:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert M. Gary wrote:

> The other day my wife asked
> why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock.

What advantage does a remote unlock offer anyone in the grand scheme of the
universe?

Other than being a fun whiz bang techno gizmo, what's so difficult about
putting a key in a lock and turning it.


--
Dallas

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:

> What advantage does a remote unlock offer anyone in the grand scheme of the
> universe?
>
> Other than being a fun whiz bang techno gizmo, what's so difficult about
> putting a key in a lock and turning it.
>
>

The last two cars I've owned I have never once used the key to unlock
the doors. I like being able to walk toward the car and pull out my key
ring and hit the door unlock before I get there. It's also rather handy
when it's raining.

Of course in both of these last two cars the remote also activated the
alarm system which doesn't get activated when you use the key to lock it.

There is also the benefit of being able to unlock the door when my son
runs to the car and get there well before I do. Handing him the key
isn't an option my Honda Ridgeline because there isn't a keyhole on the
passenger side.

Last but not least the paint doesn't get scratched up when not paying
attention and missing the keyhole.

For aircraft it would be just silly because other than the added and
useless weight virtually every benefit I mentioned for auto locks above
would be negated for one reason or another.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:14:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> The other day my wife asked
>> why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock.
>
> What advantage does a remote unlock offer anyone in the grand scheme of
> the
> universe?
>
> Other than being a fun whiz bang techno gizmo, what's so difficult about
> putting a key in a lock and turning it.
>
Quite.

If you really need something like that, there's always the "open cockpit"
birds.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Dallas wrote:
>
>> What advantage does a remote unlock offer anyone in the grand scheme of
>> the
>> universe? Other than being a fun whiz bang techno gizmo, what's so
>> difficult about
>> putting a key in a lock and turning it.
>>
>>
>
> The last two cars I've owned I have never once used the key to unlock the
> doors. I like being able to walk toward the car and pull out my key ring
> and hit the door unlock before I get there. It's also rather handy when
> it's raining.
>

The new Nissan's use a fob that is detected by the cars systems - with the
fob in your pocket, your merely push an electronic button on the door handle
and it unlocks the door and disarms the alarm system. Same thing for the
trunk.

Also, the ignition is "push button" - if the fob is detected sindie the car,
you merely push the swithc (with your foot on the brake) and the engine
starts.

Keep the fob in your jacket or pants pocket and never take it out until
you're walking away.

> Of course in both of these last two cars the remote also activated the
> alarm system which doesn't get activated when you use the key to lock it.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 17, 11:53*am, Dallas > wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:14:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > The other day my wife asked
> > why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock.
>
> What advantage does a remote unlock offer anyone in the grand scheme of the
> universe? *

Wait until you have kids.

-robert

[Peter Dohm]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:14:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> The other day my wife asked
>> why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock.
>
> What advantage does a remote unlock offer anyone in the grand scheme of
> the
> universe?
>
Absolutely none--other than the entertainment of watching another aircraft,
on the far side of the parking ramp, blink its landing light as the doors
also unlock.

As you can see, I regard them as a mixed blessing on autos as well. And,
yes, if anyone is wondering, there is someone else with the same radio key
code who frequently parks within range of my car.

Peter

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Mar 17, 12:14*am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> I use my plane for family transportation. So the wife and kids don't
> see a lot of difference between running out to the plane to go to
> Mexico vs. going out to the car. So when the family runs out ahead and
> we have the car I hit the remote unlock. The other day my wife asked
> why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock. When you think about it;
> why not have the same ease-of-use items in the plane as the car.
>
> -robert (greetings from remote Mexico)

I don't know why either, probably because everything aviation will cos
15 times as much to implement. I have a 50cc Chinese scooter that
came with an alarm system that has remote start. Loads of fun, brand
new for under $650.00. The sensitivity of the alarm is excellent.
you have to nodge the scoot a little to trigger it. The occasional
wind doesn't set it off.

Wil

[Ash Wyllie]

Gig 601XL Builder opined

>Ash Wyllie wrote:

>>
>>> Weight.
>>
>> TSA
>>
>> Can you imagine the uproar if people learned that airplanes could be
>> unlocked from a distance?
>>

>TSA could care less.

The TSA wants 2 locks on every plane. Considering how easy it is to steal an
unlock code, just imagine how they would react to such a security hole!

-ash
Cthulhu in 2008!
Vote the greater evil.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:14:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>> The other day my wife asked
>>> why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock.
>>
>> What advantage does a remote unlock offer anyone in the grand scheme of
>> the
>> universe?
>>
> Absolutely none--other than the entertainment of watching another
> aircraft, on the far side of the parking ramp, blink its landing light as
> the doors also unlock.

And hearing the stall warning horn beep. :~)

>
> As you can see, I regard them as a mixed blessing on autos as well.

With a wife and daugher, they are a safety blessing.

> And, yes, if anyone is wondering, there is someone else with the same
> radio key code who frequently parks within range of my car.

The odds of that are millions to one...about like your neighbor having the
same code for their garage door opener.

[Peter Dohm]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Dallas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:14:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>> The other day my wife asked
>>>> why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock.
>>>
>>> What advantage does a remote unlock offer anyone in the grand scheme of
>>> the
>>> universe?
>>>
>> Absolutely none--other than the entertainment of watching another
>> aircraft, on the far side of the parking ramp, blink its landing light as
>> the doors also unlock.
>
> And hearing the stall warning horn beep. :~)
>
>>
>> As you can see, I regard them as a mixed blessing on autos as well.
>
> With a wife and daugher, they are a safety blessing.
>
>> And, yes, if anyone is wondering, there is someone else with the same
>> radio key code who frequently parks within range of my car.
>
> The odds of that are millions to one...about like your neighbor having the
> same code for their garage door opener.
>
Actually, there are surprisingly few codes on any given frequency,
especially since each key fob uses three and sometimes four of the available
codes--for open/close/panic and typically trunk release. It is actually a
fraction of the codes available for a typical four tumbler key lock for any
given type of key blank--so you can probably think of a transmitting
frequency as being analogous to a style of key blank.

[Dallas]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:09:58 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> I like being able to walk toward the car and pull out my key
> ring and hit the door unlock before I get there.

Yeah, you're probably one of those guys that has a remote for starting your
fireplace. :- )


--
Dallas

[Peter Dohm]

"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder opined
>
>>Ash Wyllie wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> Weight.
>>>
>>> TSA
>>>
>>> Can you imagine the uproar if people learned that airplanes could be
>>> unlocked from a distance?
>>>
>
>>TSA could care less.
>
> The TSA wants 2 locks on every plane. Considering how easy it is to steal
> an
> unlock code, just imagine how they would react to such a security hole!
>
> -ash
> Cthulhu in 2008!
> Vote the greater evil.
>
>
It may not even be necessary for a bandit to ever actually know the code.

Peter
P.S.: That sig line is too true to be really funny this year!

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...

>>
>> The odds of that are millions to one...about like your neighbor having
>> the same code for their garage door opener.
>>
> Actually, there are surprisingly few codes on any given frequency,
> especially since each key fob uses three and sometimes four of the
> available codes--for open/close/panic and typically trunk release. It is
> actually a fraction of the codes available for a typical four tumbler key
> lock for any given type of key blank--so you can probably think of a
> transmitting frequency as being analogous to a style of key blank.

IIUC, a fob can have one frequency and over one million correlation codes.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-17, Tina > wrote:
> What's really needed are fancy wheel covers, and a rear view mirror
> where we can hang fuzzy dice.

Ours does have a rear view mirror!

Then again, we use ours to tow gliders from time to time, and the pilot
needs to keep an eye on what the glider's doing.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-18, Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
> The odds of that are millions to one...about like your neighbor having the
> same code for their garage door opener.

In a country with a lot of people, and a lot of cars, million to one
chances happen rather frequently. A few years ago my Dad was just
getting ready to drive off in his car when it locked and the alarm went
off - someone had just parked the same model of car nearby and locked it
with the remote. Both cars responded to the lock.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Gene Seibel]

On Mar 16, 10:14*pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> I use my plane for family transportation. So the wife and kids don't
> see a lot of difference between running out to the plane to go to
> Mexico vs. going out to the car. So when the family runs out ahead and
> we have the car I hit the remote unlock. The other day my wife asked
> why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock. When you think about it;
> why not have the same ease-of-use items in the plane as the car.
>
> -robert (greetings from remote Mexico)

Hadn't been invented in 1966. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-03-18, Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>> The odds of that are millions to one...about like your neighbor having
>> the
>> same code for their garage door opener.
>
> In a country with a lot of people, and a lot of cars, million to one
> chances happen rather frequently. A few years ago my Dad was just
> getting ready to drive off in his car when it locked and the alarm went
> off - someone had just parked the same model of car nearby and locked it
> with the remote. Both cars responded to the lock.

You have a million people within 500 feet (the range of a fob/garage door
opened) of you at any one time?

They're LONG odds, not impossibility.

Further, "a few years ago" such devices had maybe 200 codes and no
preventive logic.

Now, the systems are far more sophisticated.

[[email protected]]

Matt W. Barrow > wrote:

> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 2008-03-18, Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
> >> The odds of that are millions to one...about like your neighbor having
> >> the
> >> same code for their garage door opener.
> >
> > In a country with a lot of people, and a lot of cars, million to one
> > chances happen rather frequently. A few years ago my Dad was just
> > getting ready to drive off in his car when it locked and the alarm went
> > off - someone had just parked the same model of car nearby and locked it
> > with the remote. Both cars responded to the lock.

> You have a million people within 500 feet (the range of a fob/garage door
> opened) of you at any one time?

Not relevant.

Given trips to malls, the supermarket, etc. in metro areas, it wouldn't
take long to have been exposed to a million people within 500 feet.

> They're LONG odds, not impossibility.

Precisely the point; it isn't impossible, just unlikely.

> Further, "a few years ago" such devices had maybe 200 codes and no
> preventive logic.

> Now, the systems are far more sophisticated.

True, making it even less likely but still not impossible.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>
>> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 2008-03-18, Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>> >> The odds of that are millions to one...about like your neighbor having
>> >> the
>> >> same code for their garage door opener.
>> >
>> > In a country with a lot of people, and a lot of cars, million to one
>> > chances happen rather frequently. A few years ago my Dad was just
>> > getting ready to drive off in his car when it locked and the alarm went
>> > off - someone had just parked the same model of car nearby and locked
>> > it
>> > with the remote. Both cars responded to the lock.
>
>> You have a million people within 500 feet (the range of a fob/garage door
>> opened) of you at any one time?
>
> Not relevant.

Completely relevant - it's the basis of how the devices are designed and how
codes are arranged.

>
> Given trips to malls, the supermarket, etc. in metro areas, it wouldn't
> take long to have been exposed to a million people within 500 feet.

The relevance is "at any one time".


>> They're LONG odds, not impossibility.
>
> Precisely the point; it isn't impossible, just unlikely.
>
>> Further, "a few years ago" such devices had maybe 200 codes and no
>> preventive logic.
>
>> Now, the systems are far more sophisticated.
>
> True, making it even less likely but still not impossible.

Bone up a bit on "risk management".

[[email protected]]

Matt W. Barrow > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
> >
> >> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On 2008-03-18, Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
> >> >> The odds of that are millions to one...about like your neighbor having
> >> >> the
> >> >> same code for their garage door opener.
> >> >
> >> > In a country with a lot of people, and a lot of cars, million to one
> >> > chances happen rather frequently. A few years ago my Dad was just
> >> > getting ready to drive off in his car when it locked and the alarm went
> >> > off - someone had just parked the same model of car nearby and locked
> >> > it
> >> > with the remote. Both cars responded to the lock.
> >
> >> You have a million people within 500 feet (the range of a fob/garage door
> >> opened) of you at any one time?
> >
> > Not relevant.

> Completely relevant - it's the basis of how the devices are designed and how
> codes are arranged.

I highly doubt anyone ever seriously concidered the implications of being
within 500 feet of a million people ->AT ANY ONE TIME<- since it would
be physically impossible.

> >
> > Given trips to malls, the supermarket, etc. in metro areas, it wouldn't
> > take long to have been exposed to a million people within 500 feet.

> The relevance is "at any one time".

Not hardly.

The probability of someone having a matching device is dependent on
the number of exposures to others having such a device.

The probability of it happening within the next 10 seconds is extremely
low.

The probability of it happening within the next 10 years is a lot higher.

The only way to make the probability 0 is to never make more than one
device with a given set of characteristics.

> >> They're LONG odds, not impossibility.
> >
> > Precisely the point; it isn't impossible, just unlikely.
> >
> >> Further, "a few years ago" such devices had maybe 200 codes and no
> >> preventive logic.
> >
> >> Now, the systems are far more sophisticated.
> >
> > True, making it even less likely but still not impossible.

> Bone up a bit on "risk management".

Bone up a bit on "probability".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow > wrote:

>> >
>> >> You have a million people within 500 feet (the range of a fob/garage
>> >> door
>> >> opened) of you at any one time?
>> >
>> > Not relevant.
>
>> Completely relevant - it's the basis of how the devices are designed and
>> how
>> codes are arranged.
>
> I highly doubt anyone ever seriously concidered the implications of being
> within 500 feet of a million people ->AT ANY ONE TIME<- since it would
> be physically impossible.

Downtown Manhattan.

>
>> >
>> > Given trips to malls, the supermarket, etc. in metro areas, it wouldn't
>> > take long to have been exposed to a million people within 500 feet.
>
>> The relevance is "at any one time".
>
> Not hardly.

Only having that number of people AT ONE TIME is relevant in that ONLY then
can they set off your device.

(Not willing to play adolesant games any longer)

[[email protected]]

Matt W. Barrow > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Matt W. Barrow > wrote:

> >> >
> >> >> You have a million people within 500 feet (the range of a fob/garage
> >> >> door
> >> >> opened) of you at any one time?
> >> >
> >> > Not relevant.
> >
> >> Completely relevant - it's the basis of how the devices are designed and
> >> how
> >> codes are arranged.
> >
> > I highly doubt anyone ever seriously concidered the implications of being
> > within 500 feet of a million people ->AT ANY ONE TIME<- since it would
> > be physically impossible.

> Downtown Manhattan.

Dividing a 500 foot circle into a million discrete areas gives each area
around a bit less than 11 inches on a side.

Not a chance.

> >> > Given trips to malls, the supermarket, etc. in metro areas, it wouldn't
> >> > take long to have been exposed to a million people within 500 feet.
> >
> >> The relevance is "at any one time".
> >
> > Not hardly.

> Only having that number of people AT ONE TIME is relevant in that ONLY then
> can they set off your device.

With a probability of one if matching devices exist.

If you have a million devices and 1 match, hand those to a million
people, randomly select 500,000 people from the group to stand next to
and the probability is .5.

Select 10 out of the group and the probablility is .001.

Select 1 out of the group and the probablility is .000001.

> (Not willing to play adolesant games any longer)

You consider probability to be adolescent?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[WJRFlyBoy]

Military remote operations are common place. They use (a)symmetric
encryption systems xferred wifiand can be fortified with simple
biometric qualifiers (authentication). Cheap, doable, end of discussion.

[[email protected]]

WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> Military remote operations are common place. They use (a)symmetric
> encryption systems xferred wifiand can be fortified with simple
> biometric qualifiers (authentication). Cheap, doable, end of discussion.

Guys with loaded guns at the entrance to military installations are
common place.

What's your point?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt W. Barrow writes:

> You have a million people within 500 feet (the range of a fob/garage door
> opened) of you at any one time?
>
> They're LONG odds, not impossibility.

If there are 200 cars within range in a parking lot, with a million codes, the
odds of two cars having the same code are about 1 in 5000. However, if you
commute twice a day in different parking lots with 200 cars in range for work,
there's about a 10% chance that you'll find another car with the same code at
least once a year.

This is still better than keys, which often have only a very small number of
"codes." In some cases there are only a dozen or so different keys for all
the cars of a specific model or even a specific group of models. On one
occasion, after locking myself out of a rental car, I was able to open the
door with a key for our own car, and the only thing the two cars had in common
was the manufacturer. On another occasion, I got into a car in the parking
lot that matched my key, paint job, etc., only to discover that it wasn't
mine.

Anyway, you need a lot more than one million different codes to be secure.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Given trips to malls, the supermarket, etc. in metro areas, it wouldn't
> take long to have been exposed to a million people within 500 feet.

Roughly correct. More specifically, the odds diminish rapidly.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Dividing a 500 foot circle into a million discrete areas gives each area
> around a bit less than 11 inches on a side.
>
> Not a chance.

A million is a bit much for a 500-foot sphere (think in 3D, not 2D), but that
still yields only about 220,000 under the most extreme conditions.

Also, large crowds (as in demonstrations) can put very large numbers of people
within 500 feet, although not quite a million.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Dividing a 500 foot circle into a million discrete areas gives each area
> > around a bit less than 11 inches on a side.
> >
> > Not a chance.

> A million is a bit much for a 500-foot sphere (think in 3D, not 2D), but that
> still yields only about 220,000 under the most extreme conditions.

And what magical power would suspend people in 3D?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:55:04 GMT, wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> Military remote operations are common place. They use (a)symmetric
>> encryption systems xferred wifiand can be fortified with simple
>> biometric qualifiers (authentication). Cheap, doable, end of discussion.
>
> Guys with loaded guns at the entrance to military installations are
> common place.
>
> What's your point?

I made my point.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>
>> You have a million people within 500 feet (the range of a fob/garage
>> door opened) of you at any one time?
>>
>> They're LONG odds, not impossibility.
>
> If there are 200 cars within range in a parking lot, with a million
> codes, the odds of two cars having the same code are about 1 in 5000.
> However, if you commute twice a day in different parking lots with 200
> cars in range for work, there's about a 10% chance that you'll find
> another car with the same code at least once a year.
>
> This is still better than keys, which often have only a very small
> number of "codes." In some cases there are only a dozen or so
> different keys for all the cars of a specific model or even a specific
> group of models. On one occasion, after locking myself out of a
> rental car, I was able to open the door with a key for our own car,
> and the only thing the two cars had in common was the manufacturer.
> On another occasion, I got into a car in the parking lot that matched
> my key, paint job, etc., only to discover that it wasn't mine.
>
> Anyway, you need a lot more than one million different codes to be
> secure.
>

You don;t know how it works, fukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Given trips to malls, the supermarket, etc. in metro areas, it wouldn't
>> take long to have been exposed to a million people within 500 feet.
>
> Roughly correct. More specifically, the odds diminish rapidly.
>

Nope


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And what magical power would suspend people in 3D?

Buildings with more than one floor, a common sight in developed countries for
the past few centuries.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > And what magical power would suspend people in 3D?

> Buildings with more than one floor, a common sight in developed countries for
> the past few centuries.

Totally irrelevant to the original question of how many people could
be packed in a given space around a vehicle.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:02:44 -0700 (PDT), Tina >
wrote:

>Most cars are already wired for electrically controlled door locks --
>adding a simple radio controlled switch to operate in parallel with
>the usual switches is easy. Most GA airplanes do not have the door
>locks electrically controlled, as best I know. You're talking
>extensive and expensive modifications -- just buy an extra key or two.
>
>What's really needed are fancy wheel covers, and a rear view mirror
>where we can hang fuzzy dice

What? You don't have them in yours?

The Government even puts rear view mirrors on fighter planes.

>
>.
>
>
>
>On Mar 17, 1:08*am, TheSmokingGnu
> wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> > When you think about it;
>> > why not have the same ease-of-use items in the plane as the car.
>>
>> Weight. Every pound you spend on a transmitter/computer, door motors,
>> mechanisms, entertainment systems, A/C, and/or My Little Pony Stickers
>> and so forth is another pound of fuel you can't carry, another pound of
>> person you can't carry, another pound of luggage you can't carry.
>>
>> TheSmokingGnu
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:33:13 -0400, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:

>Military remote operations are common place. They use (a)symmetric
>encryption systems xferred wifiand can be fortified with simple
>biometric qualifiers (authentication). Cheap, doable, end of discussion.

And they've discovered that installations using a specific type of
RFID system can be hacked in less than a minute with relatively simple
equipment. OTOH those places that need security now have added
guards.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Roger" wrote:

>>
>>What's really needed are fancy wheel covers, and a rear view mirror
>>where we can hang fuzzy dice
>
> What? You don't have them in yours?
>
> The Government even puts rear view mirrors on fighter planes.

What I *really* want is one of those Big Blaster air horns:

http://tinyurl.com/2xb6bh


I want to be able to honk at idiots who wait 'til they're at the hold short
line to program their GPS's.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-23, Dan Luke > wrote:
> I want to be able to honk at idiots who wait 'til they're at the hold short
> line to program their GPS's.

With the engine turning? Damn, but that's expensive. I plan to program my
496 at home before I head for the airport, and the GNS430W before engine
start.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Cubdriver]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:53:36 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

>The Government even puts rear view mirrors on fighter planes.

There's a rear-view mirror on the Piper Cub I rent, but I think it's
there so the instructor can spy on the student.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 04:15:15 -0400, Roger wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:33:13 -0400, WJRFlyBoy
> > wrote:
>
>>Military remote operations are common place. They use (a)symmetric
>>encryption systems xferred wifiand can be fortified with simple
>>biometric qualifiers (authentication). Cheap, doable, end of discussion.
>
> And they've discovered that installations using a specific type of
> RFID system can be hacked in less than a minute with relatively simple
> equipment. OTOH those places that need security now have added
> guards.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Poor implementations, I'm no RFID fan, we're barcode people lol but
there is no reason that a properly designed, keyless remote system
which uses your fingerprint (I would say thumbprint but in your case :)
) as the "key" to allow the unlocking of the encrypted, transmitted code
can't be accomplished. They are common place (assuming no FAA frequency
issues, blah blah) Encryption is rock solid, unbreakable, it's the
password (in this case your print) that is the weak link.

[Michael[_1_]]

On Mar 17, 12:14*am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> I use my plane for family transportation. So the wife and kids don't
> see a lot of difference between running out to the plane to go to
> Mexico vs. going out to the car. So when the family runs out ahead and
> we have the car I hit the remote unlock. The other day my wife asked
> why the plane doesn't have a remote unlock. When you think about it;
> why not have the same ease-of-use items in the plane as the car.

The practical reasons are weight and power draw. Weight is obvious
(and mentioned by others), power draw not so much. The batteries we
use in our airplanes are basically equivalent to lawn tractor
batteries - and not the high end $90 ones that have a 3 year full
replacement and 8 year pro-rated warranty.

The $90 lawn tractor batteries use new technology matted fiber for
suspending the acid, and thus achieve more reserve capacity, more
starting power, and longer life in a smaller, lower weight package
than our aircraft batteries. But we can't use them. Not approved.
What we use is basically the same technology and quality control as
the $25 lawn tractor batteries, but with more paperwork.

Add to this the fact that it is normal rather than rare for an
airplane to sit three weeks without being started. All this time, the
receiver for the locks is powered up and waiting for a signal, drawing
power from a battery that is undersized (for weight) and low tech
(just because) to begin with. Not a good plan.

Michael

[Tina]

The difference is, trying a physical key in a lock is an overt act --
someone is actually trying to gain entry into a specific car. Pressing
a remote device tests all cars in range, in addition to opening your
own specific car. If the first case one can be assumed to be a
deliberate bad guy, in the other, it's an accidental event.


.


On Mar 22, 2:15*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> > > And what magical power would suspend people in 3D?
> > Buildings with more than one floor, a common sight in developed countries for
> > the past few centuries.
>
> Totally irrelevant to the original question of how many people could
> be packed in a given space around a vehicle.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.