Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] Securing a desktop PC
[I] Securing a desktop PC [message #264350] Do, 11 Mai 2006 13:42
PeterH  
Right. So the insurance people have finally forked out and I can replace
my desktop PC.

I'm sick of people stealing my computers though, so this time I want to
take a bit of extra trouble making sure it doesn't grow legs again.

It's going to be kept in a room which will be locked when I'm not at home.
The room's only window is right in front of my neighbour's front door, but
I don't expect that to stop anyone.

So what I've been thinking of doing is buying a long length of chain,
looping it through the PC box (drilling necessary holes of course) and the
burglar bars on the window. Add a couple of motion detectors and I'm done.

What else could I do apart from making daily backups?


...PeterH
Re: [I] Securing a desktop PC [message #264355 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 14:19
Kar98  
On 2006-05-11 06:42:17 -0500, Peter Davies <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> said:

> So what I've been thinking of doing is buying a long length of chain,
> looping it through the PC box (drilling necessary holes of course) and the
> burglar bars on the window. Add a couple of motion detectors and I'm done.
>
> What else could I do apart from making daily backups?

Move to a different area where they don't repeatedly and habitually
break into your home and steal your PC?

Should this prove impossible, you could bolt it to an heavy oak or
steel desk. Or set up a decoy. Keep something the size of a Mac mini
hidden and operational and put a dead but flashy box out in plain
sight. Hide gyroscope inside, If it detects a certain amount of
movement, KABLAMMO! Shrapnel and burglar bits all over the place. :-)


--
My computer is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in 3 seconds.
Re: [I] Securing a desktop PC [message #264359 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 14:38
Jeff C  
On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:42:17 +0200, Peter Davies wrote:

> What else could I do apart from making daily backups?

Buy a PC case, fill it with bricks and put it in plain sight. Hide the
real one when you're not there : )

How about engraving your name, driver's license number or other
identifying mark onto it? Do Crimewatch stickers exist in your community?


--
Jessica
Re: [I] Securing a desktop PC [message #264371 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 15:47
David Chapman  
From the Collected Witterings of Peter Davies, volume 23:

> So what I've been thinking of doing is buying a long length of chain,
> looping it through the PC box (drilling necessary holes of course) and the
> burglar bars on the window. Add a couple of motion detectors and I'm done.

You can get anti-theft devices without making your own; they're basically
lengths of flexible metal cord that bolt to your desk at one end and your
monitor at the other, passing through a loop affixed to the backplate of
your PC case (so you can't free the PC by removing the outer shell.

Job Centres use them; if you can't find the things by looking, call up your
local and ask where they get theirs.

--
If life gives you lemmings, jump off a cliff.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264385 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 17:32
darthbob88  
Jessie C wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:42:17 +0200, Peter Davies wrote:
>
> > What else could I do apart from making daily backups?
>
> Buy a PC case, fill it with bricks and put it in plain sight. Hide the
> real one when you're not there : )
>
> How about engraving your name, driver's license number or other
> identifying mark onto it? Do Crimewatch stickers exist in your community?
Not just that. Personalize the hell out of it. A thing with stickers
and dremel marks all over can't possibly be sold, and it looks cool
too. Just my $.02
>
> --
> Jessica
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264388 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 17:52
Kar98  
On 2006-05-11 10:32:05 -0500, darthbob88 [at] gmail.com said:

> Not just that. Personalize the hell out of it. A thing with stickers
> and dremel marks all over can't possibly be sold, and it looks cool
> too. Just my $.02

I'd just put everything into a different case then if I was the thief.
Got plenty of those standing around.

--
My computer is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in 3 seconds.
Re: [I] Securing a desktop PC [message #264410 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 19:53
alec  
In article <pan.2006.05.11.11.42.12.778745 [at] yahoo.co.uk>,
peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk says...
> Right. So the insurance people have finally forked out and I can replace
> my desktop PC.
>
> I'm sick of people stealing my computers though, so this time I want to
> take a bit of extra trouble making sure it doesn't grow legs again.
>
> It's going to be kept in a room which will be locked when I'm not at home.
> The room's only window is right in front of my neighbour's front door, but
> I don't expect that to stop anyone.
>
> So what I've been thinking of doing is buying a long length of chain,
> looping it through the PC box (drilling necessary holes of course) and the
> burglar bars on the window. Add a couple of motion detectors and I'm done.
>
> What else could I do apart from making daily backups?

There are a number of PCs on the market which have the necessary holes
pre-positioned in the PC, and organised so that they cannot be ripped
out. There are also specialised computer security cables For example, go
to http://www.dabs.com and search for Security Devices. Perhaps
Quicklinkx 2V63WS
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264432 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 21:39
darthbob88  
Ren=E9 wrote:
> On 2006-05-11 10:32:05 -0500, darthbob88 [at] gmail.com said:
>
> > Not just that. Personalize the hell out of it. A thing with stickers
> > and dremel marks all over can't possibly be sold, and it looks cool
> > too. Just my $.02
>
> I'd just put everything into a different case then if I was the thief.
> Got plenty of those standing around.
Very good idea. Eh, my personal favorite is a burglar warning system.
Not for you, for the burglar. Wire it up so that if the thing is moved,
a tape player plays the sound of a 12 gauge cycling. Chick-shack! There
are very few thieves who wouldn't turn tail at that sound.
> --
> My computer is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in 3 seconds.
Re: [I] Securing a desktop PC [message #264433 ] Do, 11 Mai 2006 22:05
Andy Davison  
On Thursday 11 May 2006 12:42, Peter Davies wrote:

> What else could I do apart from making daily backups?

There was a story in the press a while back about a bloke who set his webcam
up with motion detection software which, when it detected the movements of
a burglar, took photos and sent them over a broadband link to his website.
All he had to do to find out who had nicked his gear was to get the Police
to log onto the site and download the evidence. OK his computer was stolen
but he got it back quickly.
--
Andy Davison
andy [at] oiyou.force9.co.uk
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264461 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 00:55
rja.carnegie  
Ren=E9 wrote:
> On 2006-05-11 10:32:05 -0500, darthbob88 [at] gmail.com said:
>
> > Not just that. Personalize the hell out of it. A thing with stickers
> > and dremel marks all over can't possibly be sold, and it looks cool
> > too. Just my $.02
>
> I'd just put everything into a different case then if I was the thief.
> Got plenty of those standing around.

If you'd thought of that. We're probably not looking at very clever
people here.

Mind you, there was that exciting period when RAM modules were worth
stealing, people would break into offices, crack the PCs and just take
the RAM...
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264462 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 01:31
David Chapman  
From the Collected Witterings of darthbob88 [at] gmail.com, volume 23:
> Eh, my personal favorite is a burglar warning system.
> Not for you, for the burglar. Wire it up so that if the thing is moved,
> a tape player plays the sound of a 12 gauge cycling. Chick-shack! There
> are very few thieves who wouldn't turn tail at that sound.

You have evidence for this? I think they'd be more likely to freeze, so as
not to startle you into shooting. Then, when after two seconds they realise
there's nobody there, they carry on with what they're doing.

--
If life gives you lemmings, jump off a cliff.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264464 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 03:23
Brenda  
Robert Carnegie said:

> Mind you, there was that exciting period when RAM modules were worth
> stealing, people would break into offices, crack the PCs and just take
> the RAM...

A former project lead delighted in relating the tale of the thieves who
broke into his company's offices. They were after computers, of course.
What they actually got away with were the keyboards - "yeah, dey where you
type computer stuff" - and the monitors - "dat where der numbers come out".
They didn't seem interested in the system boxes, though, even though they
were lighter and more valuable than the monitors.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
Re: [I] Securing a desktop PC [message #264483 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 10:43
Hendrik Schober  
Andy Davison <andy [at] oiyou.force9.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thursday 11 May 2006 12:42, Peter Davies wrote:
>
>> What else could I do apart from making daily backups?
>
> There was a story in the press a while back about a bloke who set his webcam
> up with motion detection software which, when it detected the movements of
> a burglar, took photos and sent them over a broadband link to his website.
> All he had to do to find out who had nicked his gear was to get the Police
> to log onto the site and download the evidence. OK his computer was stolen
> but he got it back quickly.


Old, but probably interesting anyway:
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,50025,00.html

Schobi

--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264519 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 17:05
darthbob88  
David Chapman wrote:
> From the Collected Witterings of darthbob88 [at] gmail.com, volume 23:
> > Eh, my personal favorite is a burglar warning system.
> > Not for you, for the burglar. Wire it up so that if the thing is moved,
> > a tape player plays the sound of a 12 gauge cycling. Chick-shack! There
> > are very few thieves who wouldn't turn tail at that sound.
>
> You have evidence for this? I think they'd be more likely to freeze, so as
> not to startle you into shooting. Then, when after two seconds they realise
> there's nobody there, they carry on with what they're doing.
Admittedly, no. My community is too uncivilized to have thieves for
very long. Still, it might work to add a bit to the recording. "Put the
computer down, /now/, or I shall open fire. Good boy. Now, run!"
Actually, for my set-up, I live near an Air Base, and have it playing
the sound of a plane diving and strafing some targets. Also makes it
easy to find the would-be thief. Just look for somebody with brown
pants.
> --
> If life gives you lemmings, jump off a cliff.
Re: [I] Securing a desktop PC [message #264529 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 18:00
Steve Rogers  
"Peter Davies" <peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.11.11.42.12.778745 [at] yahoo.co.uk...
> Right. So the insurance people have finally forked out and I can
> replace
> my desktop PC.
>
> I'm sick of people stealing my computers though, so this time I want
> to
> take a bit of extra trouble making sure it doesn't grow legs again.
>
> It's going to be kept in a room which will be locked when I'm not at
> home.
> The room's only window is right in front of my neighbour's front door,
> but
> I don't expect that to stop anyone.
>
> So what I've been thinking of doing is buying a long length of chain,
> looping it through the PC box (drilling necessary holes of course) and
> the
> burglar bars on the window. Add a couple of motion detectors and I'm
> done.
>
> What else could I do apart from making daily backups?
>

Invest in large, hungry, well equipped in the tooth and claw department,
beast of your choice :)

Steve
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264565 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 19:43
alec  
In article <e40hhl$dn3$2$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, jedit_ojanen8
[at] hotmail.com says...
> From the Collected Witterings of darthbob88 [at] gmail.com, volume 23:
> > Eh, my personal favorite is a burglar warning system.
> > Not for you, for the burglar. Wire it up so that if the thing is moved,
> > a tape player plays the sound of a 12 gauge cycling. Chick-shack! There
> > are very few thieves who wouldn't turn tail at that sound.
>
> You have evidence for this? I think they'd be more likely to freeze, so as
> not to startle you into shooting. Then, when after two seconds they realise
> there's nobody there, they carry on with what they're doing.

Its function depends on being in a country with a sufficient gun culture
that people recognise the sound. Since I have only ever heard the sound
on shootout movies, of which I watch very few, it would be as
threatening to me as the sound of readying a custard pie.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264577 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 19:59
Stacie Hanes  
Alec Cawley wrote:
> In article <e40hhl$dn3$2$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, jedit_ojanen8
> [at] hotmail.com says...
>> From the Collected Witterings of darthbob88 [at] gmail.com, volume 23:
>>> Eh, my personal favorite is a burglar warning system.
>>> Not for you, for the burglar. Wire it up so that if the thing is
>>> moved, a tape player plays the sound of a 12 gauge cycling.
>>> Chick-shack! There are very few thieves who wouldn't turn tail at
>>> that sound.
>>
>> You have evidence for this? I think they'd be more likely to
>> freeze, so as not to startle you into shooting. Then, when after
>> two seconds they realise there's nobody there, they carry on with
>> what they're doing.
>
> Its function depends on being in a country with a sufficient gun
> culture that people recognise the sound. Since I have only ever
> heard the sound on shootout movies, of which I watch very few, it
> would be as threatening to me as the sound of readying a custard
> pie.

What I was thinking. It's a distinctive sound, but not a natural one. It
depends on culture, whereas the growl of a great cat is something that would
raise the hair on anyone's neck, unless they're accustomed in reverse to
knowing it'sNOT a threat.

--
Stacie, 4th swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons, Bondage-happy predator,
Speaker-To-Students, AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion &
AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED "If you can't be a good example, you'll
just have to be a horrible warning." C. Aird, _His Burial Too_
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264600 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 21:56
Matthew Seaman  
"Stacie Hanes" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> writes:

> Alec Cawley wrote:
> > In article <e40hhl$dn3$2$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, jedit_ojanen8
> > [at] hotmail.com says...
> >> From the Collected Witterings of darthbob88 [at] gmail.com, volume 23:
> >>> Eh, my personal favorite is a burglar warning system.
> >>> Not for you, for the burglar. Wire it up so that if the thing is
> >>> moved, a tape player plays the sound of a 12 gauge cycling.
> >>> Chick-shack! There are very few thieves who wouldn't turn tail at
> >>> that sound.
> >>
> >> You have evidence for this? I think they'd be more likely to
> >> freeze, so as not to startle you into shooting. Then, when after
> >> two seconds they realise there's nobody there, they carry on with
> >> what they're doing.
> >
> > Its function depends on being in a country with a sufficient gun
> > culture that people recognise the sound. Since I have only ever
> > heard the sound on shootout movies, of which I watch very few, it
> > would be as threatening to me as the sound of readying a custard
> > pie.
>
> What I was thinking. It's a distinctive sound, but not a natural one. It
> depends on culture, whereas the growl of a great cat is something that would
> raise the hair on anyone's neck, unless they're accustomed in reverse to
> knowing it'sNOT a threat.

Nah. What's really frightening is the non-sound of some hairy,
fanged, eight legged horror creeping up behind you *totally silently*.

It's like you'ld get the sensation -- that feeling in the back of your
neck -- that something was going to jump out on you -- and you'ld look
back in fear, but, of course, you wouldn't *see* anything. And
somehow that will just make it worse, because you'ld *know* it's there
and you just couldn't see it.

Then you'ld look up towards the ceiling.

Cheers,

Matthew

--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264603 ] Fr, 12 Mai 2006 22:09
Stacie Hanes  
Matthew Seaman wrote:

> Nah. What's really frightening is the non-sound of some hairy,
> fanged, eight legged horror creeping up behind you *totally
> silently*.
>

Which is precisely why I don't like spiders.

--
Stacie, 4th swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons, Bondage-happy predator,
Speaker-To-Students, AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion &
AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED "If you can't be a good example, you'll
just have to be a horrible warning." C. Aird, _His Burial Too_
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264664 ] Sa, 13 Mai 2006 03:56
Eric Jarvis  
Alec Cawley alec [at] spamspam.co.uk wrote in
<MPG.1eced9aaf9383c06989c48 [at] news.individual.net>:
> In article <e40hhl$dn3$2$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, jedit_ojanen8
> [at] hotmail.com says...
> > From the Collected Witterings of darthbob88 [at] gmail.com, volume 23:
> > > Eh, my personal favorite is a burglar warning system.
> > > Not for you, for the burglar. Wire it up so that if the thing is moved,
> > > a tape player plays the sound of a 12 gauge cycling. Chick-shack! There
> > > are very few thieves who wouldn't turn tail at that sound.
> >
> > You have evidence for this? I think they'd be more likely to freeze, so as
> > not to startle you into shooting. Then, when after two seconds they realise
> > there's nobody there, they carry on with what they're doing.
>
> Its function depends on being in a country with a sufficient gun culture
> that people recognise the sound. Since I have only ever heard the sound
> on shootout movies, of which I watch very few, it would be as
> threatening to me as the sound of readying a custard pie.
>

My understanding of the best policy is as follows. Get good door and
window locks and ensure that door and window frames are as strong as the
locks. Do not leave expensive and easily saleable items in places they can
easily be seen from the street. Where possible trim back trees as bushes
so that there are no places by your doors or windows where it's easy to
hide. When you buy something expensive do not leave the packaging on the
street in front of your home and do not leave old valuable items in the
street when you upgrade or replace them. Get good insurance if possible
and make back ups.

The vast majority of burglars are opportunists apparently. They aren't
going along the street robbing each house in numerical order, but instead
keep their eyes open for places that look easy to enter or which look like
they will contain more easily removable valuables than most. Rather than
trying to scare burglars off it's more effective to not be their target in
the first place.

In my entire life I've been the victim of precisely one burglary, and I
know exactly who did it. Since all they stole was a television that I had
already taken the decision to replace I don't see it as a big thing.
Currently I'm living in a first floor flat that's got no windows on to the
street. That makes it fairly easy. However I've lived in ground floor
flats on several occasions and never had a problem. However I have also
never been the sort of person who wants to show off my shiny new stereo or
PC to my neighbours by putting it where it can be seen from the street.

I use a similar method with bikes. Since I usually park by battered old
criterion trainer next to the most expensive looking mountain bike I can
find it's not likely to be a high priority for a bike thief.

In a seriously rural situation none of the above applies, of course.

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264687 ] Sa, 13 Mai 2006 09:13
Rocky Frisco  
Eric Jarvis wrote:
> Alec Cawley alec [at] spamspam.co.uk wrote in
> <MPG.1eced9aaf9383c06989c48 [at] news.individual.net>:
>
>>In article <e40hhl$dn3$2$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, jedit_ojanen8
>> [at] hotmail.com says...
>>
>>>From the Collected Witterings of darthbob88 [at] gmail.com, volume 23:
>>>
>>>>Eh, my personal favorite is a burglar warning system.
>>>>Not for you, for the burglar. Wire it up so that if the thing is moved,
>>>>a tape player plays the sound of a 12 gauge cycling. Chick-shack! There
>>>>are very few thieves who wouldn't turn tail at that sound.
>>>
>>>You have evidence for this? I think they'd be more likely to freeze, so as
>>>not to startle you into shooting. Then, when after two seconds they realise
>>>there's nobody there, they carry on with what they're doing.
>>
>>Its function depends on being in a country with a sufficient gun culture
>>that people recognise the sound. Since I have only ever heard the sound
>>on shootout movies, of which I watch very few, it would be as
>>threatening to me as the sound of readying a custard pie.
>>
>
>
> My understanding of the best policy is as follows. Get good door and
> window locks and ensure that door and window frames are as strong as the
> locks. Do not leave expensive and easily saleable items in places they can
> easily be seen from the street. Where possible trim back trees as bushes
> so that there are no places by your doors or windows where it's easy to
> hide. When you buy something expensive do not leave the packaging on the
> street in front of your home and do not leave old valuable items in the
> street when you upgrade or replace them. Get good insurance if possible
> and make back ups.

I live in the previously mentioned gun culture, so I do just the
opposite and stay dangerously armed and ready to blow the bastards away.

> The vast majority of burglars are opportunists apparently. They aren't
> going along the street robbing each house in numerical order, but instead
> keep their eyes open for places that look easy to enter or which look like
> they will contain more easily removable valuables than most. Rather than
> trying to scare burglars off it's more effective to not be their target in
> the first place.

That just moves the crime onto a neighbor; better to remove them from
the living list. Ka-Pow! One less predator.

> In my entire life I've been the victim of precisely one burglary, and I
> know exactly who did it. Since all they stole was a television that I had
> already taken the decision to replace I don't see it as a big thing.
> Currently I'm living in a first floor flat that's got no windows on to the
> street. That makes it fairly easy. However I've lived in ground floor
> flats on several occasions and never had a problem. However I have also
> never been the sort of person who wants to show off my shiny new stereo or
> PC to my neighbours by putting it where it can be seen from the street.

We call that bait.

> I use a similar method with bikes. Since I usually park by battered old
> criterion trainer next to the most expensive looking mountain bike I can
> find it's not likely to be a high priority for a bike thief.
>
> In a seriously rural situation none of the above applies, of course.

Especially if the rural area is in Oklahoma or Texas.

-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #264693 ] Sa, 13 Mai 2006 10:33
Graycat  
On Sat, 13 May 2006 02:13:42 -0500, Rocky Frisco
<rocknatural [at] gmail.com> jotted down:

>Eric Jarvis wrote:

>> The vast majority of burglars are opportunists apparently. They aren't
>> going along the street robbing each house in numerical order, but instead
>> keep their eyes open for places that look easy to enter or which look like
>> they will contain more easily removable valuables than most. Rather than
>> trying to scare burglars off it's more effective to not be their target in
>> the first place.
>
>That just moves the crime onto a neighbor; better to remove them from
>the living list. Ka-Pow! One less predator.

Funny, and here I was thinking you were anti-violence...or
is that only other people's voilence?

--
Elin
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
The Oswalds DW casting award - Vote Now!
http://www.student.lu.se/~his02ero/Oswald/index.html
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266771 ] Sa, 13 Mai 2006 19:40
Jens Ayton  
Graycat:
> Rocky Frisco
>>
>> That just moves the crime onto a neighbor; better to remove them from
>> the living list. Ka-Pow! One less predator.
>
> Funny, and here I was thinking you were anti-violence...or
> is that only other people's voilence?

Aww, now you spoiled his carefully-assembled troll.


--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266782 ] Sa, 13 Mai 2006 20:50
Rocky Frisco  
Graycat wrote:

> On Sat, 13 May 2006 02:13:42 -0500, Rocky Frisco
> <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> jotted down:
>
>
>>Eric Jarvis wrote:
>
>
>>>The vast majority of burglars are opportunists apparently. They aren't
>>>going along the street robbing each house in numerical order, but instead
>>>keep their eyes open for places that look easy to enter or which look like
>>>they will contain more easily removable valuables than most. Rather than
>>>trying to scare burglars off it's more effective to not be their target in
>>>the first place.
>>
>>That just moves the crime onto a neighbor; better to remove them from
>>the living list. Ka-Pow! One less predator.
>
>
> Funny, and here I was thinking you were anti-violence...or
> is that only other people's voilence?

I am against the initiation of violence and will not initiate violence
against the person or property of others. I WILL vigorously defend
myself and my property against violence. I see both of these as being
non-violent. If I don't stop violence directed toward me and my
property, I am encouraging the perpetrator to do violence against others
and their property.

-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266790 ] Sa, 13 Mai 2006 21:21
Kar98  
On 2006-05-13 13:50:39 -0500, Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> said:

> If I don't stop violence directed toward me and my property, I am
> encouraging the perpetrator to do violence against others and their
> property.

....who might not /have/ the option to make a choice between suffering
violence or returning it.


--
My computer is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in 3 seconds.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266800 ] Sa, 13 Mai 2006 22:02
Rocky Frisco  
Jens Ayton wrote:

> Graycat:
>
>>Rocky Frisco
>>
>>>That just moves the crime onto a neighbor; better to remove them from
>>>the living list. Ka-Pow! One less predator.
>>
>>Funny, and here I was thinking you were anti-violence...or
>>is that only other people's voilence?

> Aww, now you spoiled his carefully-assembled troll.

Not a troll at all, rather a sincere statement of my reality.

I will not initiate violence, however I will defend myself and my
property vigorously. This is called "libertarianism."

-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266805 ] Sa, 13 Mai 2006 22:23
Rocky Frisco  
René wrote:

> On 2006-05-13 13:50:39 -0500, Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> said:
>
>> If I don't stop violence directed toward me and my property, I am
>> encouraging the perpetrator to do violence against others and their
>> property.
>
>
> ...who might not /have/ the option to make a choice between suffering
> violence or returning it.

Exactly. If I refuse to use violence to defend, how many helpless
victims will be robbed, injured or killed as a result?

-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266840 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 00:34
Jens Ayton  
Rocky Frisco:
>
> I am against the initiation of violence and will not initiate violence
> against the person or property of others. I WILL vigorously defend
> myself and my property against violence. I see both of these as being
> non-violent.

If (as implied by the greater context) you include theft in your
concept of "violence" here, I can't possibly agree with your description
of this as a non-violent stance. In fact, I don't see that as being any
better than saying that people who are ugly are committing violence
against you and should be met with lethal force.


--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266852 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 01:29
Philippa Cowderoy  
On Sat, 13 May 2006, Jens Ayton wrote:

> Rocky Frisco:
> >
> > I am against the initiation of violence and will not initiate violence
> > against the person or property of others. I WILL vigorously defend
> > myself and my property against violence. I see both of these as being
> > non-violent.
>
> If (as implied by the greater context) you include theft in your
> concept of "violence" here, I can't possibly agree with your description
> of this as a non-violent stance. In fact, I don't see that as being any
> better than saying that people who are ugly are committing violence
> against you and should be met with lethal force.
>

I don't have much problem with the idea that stealing the money I need to
eat is, albeit indirectly, a violent act.

--
flippa [at] flippac.org

Ivanova is always right.
I will listen to Ivanova.
I will not ignore Ivanova's recomendations.
Ivanova is God.
And, if this ever happens again, Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out!
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266860 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 02:04
Rocky Frisco  
Jens Ayton wrote:

> Rocky Frisco:
>
>>I am against the initiation of violence and will not initiate violence
>>against the person or property of others. I WILL vigorously defend
>>myself and my property against violence. I see both of these as being
>>non-violent.

> If (as implied by the greater context) you include theft in your
> concept of "violence" here, I can't possibly agree with your description
> of this as a non-violent stance. In fact, I don't see that as being any
> better than saying that people who are ugly are committing violence
> against you and should be met with lethal force.

Well, I must say you definitely beat the shit out of that particular
straw person.

-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266861 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 02:04
rja.carnegie  
Rocky Frisco wrote:
> Graycat wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 May 2006 02:13:42 -0500, Rocky Frisco
> > <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> jotted down:
> >
> >
> >>Eric Jarvis wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>The vast majority of burglars are opportunists apparently. They aren't
> >>>going along the street robbing each house in numerical order, but instead
> >>>keep their eyes open for places that look easy to enter or which look like
> >>>they will contain more easily removable valuables than most. Rather than
> >>>trying to scare burglars off it's more effective to not be their target in
> >>>the first place.

Keep 'em walking, they'll get fed up. If everyone protects
themselves... well, protection that is merely inconvenient to the thief
will no longer be protection.

> >>That just moves the crime onto a neighbor; better to remove them from
> >>the living list. Ka-Pow! One less predator.
> >
> >
> > Funny, and here I was thinking you were anti-violence...or
> > is that only other people's voilence?
>
> I am against the initiation of violence and will not initiate violence
> against the person or property of others. I WILL vigorously defend
> myself and my property against violence. I see both of these as being
> non-violent. If I don't stop violence directed toward me and my
> property, I am encouraging the perpetrator to do violence against others
> and their property.

Suppose a sincere difference of opinion arises as to what is your
property.

I suppose a strict libertarian definition is whatever you can fight to
defend, is yours.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266866 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 02:19
Arthur Hagen  
Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am against the initiation of violence and will not initiate violence
> against the person or property of others. I WILL vigorously defend
> myself and my property against violence. I see both of these as being
> non-violent. If I don't stop violence directed toward me and my
> property, I am encouraging the perpetrator to do violence against
> others and their property.

Not preventing != encouraging. And who are you to say that they /will/ do
violence against others or their property? Should we judge people for /in
potentia/ crimes, and appoint ourselves executioner as well as jury?

Regards,
--
*Art
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266868 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 03:12
Rocky Frisco  
Robert Carnegie wrote:

> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>
>>Graycat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 May 2006 02:13:42 -0500, Rocky Frisco
>>><rocknatural [at] gmail.com> jotted down:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Eric Jarvis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The vast majority of burglars are opportunists apparently. They aren't
>>>>>going along the street robbing each house in numerical order, but instead
>>>>>keep their eyes open for places that look easy to enter or which look like
>>>>>they will contain more easily removable valuables than most. Rather than
>>>>>trying to scare burglars off it's more effective to not be their target in
>>>>>the first place.
>
>
> Keep 'em walking, they'll get fed up. If everyone protects
> themselves... well, protection that is merely inconvenient to the thief
> will no longer be protection.
>
>
>>>>That just moves the crime onto a neighbor; better to remove them from
>>>>the living list. Ka-Pow! One less predator.
>>>
>>>
>>>Funny, and here I was thinking you were anti-violence...or
>>>is that only other people's voilence?
>>
>>I am against the initiation of violence and will not initiate violence
>>against the person or property of others. I WILL vigorously defend
>>myself and my property against violence. I see both of these as being
>>non-violent. If I don't stop violence directed toward me and my
>>property, I am encouraging the perpetrator to do violence against others
>>and their property.
>
>
> Suppose a sincere difference of opinion arises as to what is your
> property.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." So, I'm saying that
the difference described is where the courts and arbitration come in.

> I suppose a strict libertarian definition is whatever you can fight to
> defend, is yours.

No, that's "might makes right," which I vigorously oppose.

-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266871 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 03:18
Rocky Frisco  
Arthur Hagen wrote:

> Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I am against the initiation of violence and will not initiate violence
>> against the person or property of others. I WILL vigorously defend
>> myself and my property against violence. I see both of these as being
>> non-violent. If I don't stop violence directed toward me and my
>> property, I am encouraging the perpetrator to do violence against
>> others and their property.
>
>
> Not preventing != encouraging. And who are you to say that they /will/
> do violence against others or their property? Should we judge people
> for /in potentia/ crimes, and appoint ourselves executioner as well as
> jury?

Yes, but only when genuinely threatened, therefore having grounds for
using the preventative violence. I think you may agree that success at
an enterprise encourages the perpetrator to repeat the activity.

-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266872 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 03:19
Kar98  
On 2006-05-13 17:34:45 -0500, Jens Ayton <PKWVQQGMIMEU [at] spammotel.com> said:

> Rocky Frisco:
>>
>> I am against the initiation of violence and will not initiate violence
>> against the person or property of others. I WILL vigorously defend
>> myself and my property against violence. I see both of these as being
>> non-violent.
>
> If (as implied by the greater context) you include theft in your
> concept of "violence" here, I can't possibly agree with your description
> of this as a non-violent stance.

Why not? I worked for my stuff and anyone trying to take anything from
me that I am not giving away willingly is robbing me of parts of my
life.


--
My computer is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in 3 seconds.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266875 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 03:32
Kar98  
On 2006-05-13 19:19:09 -0500, "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> said:

> Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am against the initiation of violence and will not initiate violence
>> against the person or property of others. I WILL vigorously defend
>> myself and my property against violence. I see both of these as being
>> non-violent. If I don't stop violence directed toward me and my
>> property, I am encouraging the perpetrator to do violence against
>> others and their property.
>
> Not preventing != encouraging. And who are you to say that they /will/
> do violence against others or their property? Should we judge people
> for /in potentia/ crimes, and appoint ourselves executioner as well as
> jury?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"What we do know," the [self-defense instructor] said, raising his
voice, "is that this man is not going to take your purse, go back
to his apartment, and say 'Ah, my final mugging. Time to look through
the want ads and find a job.' He is
going to keep doing it.
"The other thing I can absolutely guarantee you is that you will not
help put this man in jail now.
Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable kind of evidence. If you
identify a suspect in a line-up and claim
that beyond doubt he's the one, you may well be helping to imprison an
innocent man."
"The time to do something is when you have the mugger right in front of
you! The time to fight is when
you are strong, not after you've been beaten! And the time and place to
lose your dignity is in here, [in class] with
me, where you'll get it back in five or ten minutes, and you won't be
left lying on the ground, bruised at best
and maybe permanently crippled, with guilt eating at your guts that
he's going to do it again, to someone
else, because you didn't stop him."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reproduced with author's permission
"Unintended Consequences" / John Ross
ISBN 1-888118-04-0 I.



--
My computer is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in 3 seconds.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266877 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 04:03
Arthur Hagen  
Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>
>> Not preventing != encouraging. And who are you to say that they
>> /will/ do violence against others or their property? Should we
>> judge people for /in potentia/ crimes, and appoint ourselves
>> executioner as well as jury?
>
> Yes, but only when genuinely threatened, therefore having grounds for
> using the preventative violence. I think you may agree that success at
> an enterprise encourages the perpetrator to repeat the activity.

No, I don't agree with that. That's jumping to a conclusion. There's no
telling whether success stimulates repeat, as this depends on the enterprise
and the individual. I sure have done many successful things which I would
not repeat.

And even if it did encourage it (which you can't tell), I cannot condone
adding violence to prevent *possible* future crimes. Encouraged != will do.

--
*Art
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266887 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 08:21
Eric Jarvis  
René Kar98 [at] The-Coalition.US wrote in <2006051320325950878-
Kar98 [at] TheCoalitionUS>:
> On 2006-05-13 19:19:09 -0500, "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> said:
>
> > Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am against the initiation of violence and will not initiate violence
> >> against the person or property of others. I WILL vigorously defend
> >> myself and my property against violence. I see both of these as being
> >> non-violent. If I don't stop violence directed toward me and my
> >> property, I am encouraging the perpetrator to do violence against
> >> others and their property.
> >
> > Not preventing != encouraging. And who are you to say that they /will/
> > do violence against others or their property? Should we judge people
> > for /in potentia/ crimes, and appoint ourselves executioner as well as
> > jury?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "What we do know," the [self-defense instructor] said, raising his
> voice, "is that this man is not going to take your purse, go back
> to his apartment, and say 'Ah, my final mugging. Time to look through
> the want ads and find a job.' He is
> going to keep doing it.
> <snip>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Reproduced with author's permission
> "Unintended Consequences" / John Ross
> ISBN 1-888118-04-0 I.
>

I prefer to draw on sources other than fiction when attempting to decide
what will and won't work. Fiction can give you an insight into what one
individual believes, it does not provide any concrete evidence of anything
else.

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266894 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 17:04
Rocky Frisco  
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>
>>> Not preventing != encouraging. And who are you to say that they
>>> /will/ do violence against others or their property? Should we
>>> judge people for /in potentia/ crimes, and appoint ourselves
>>> executioner as well as jury?
>>
>>
>> Yes, but only when genuinely threatened, therefore having grounds for
>> using the preventative violence. I think you may agree that success at
>> an enterprise encourages the perpetrator to repeat the activity.
>
>
> No, I don't agree with that. That's jumping to a conclusion. There's
> no telling whether success stimulates repeat, as this depends on the
> enterprise and the individual. I sure have done many successful things
> which I would not repeat.
>
> And even if it did encourage it (which you can't tell), I cannot condone
> adding violence to prevent *possible* future crimes. Encouraged != will
> do.

Not asking you to condone; my life and property are not yours, so I
don't intend to run to my computer or telephone to ask your permission
to defend myself the next time somebody tries to rob or carjack me.

I don't intend to require you to go armed. In fact, since I suppose you
are in the UK, I suspect you can no longer go armed without breaking the
local laws. Here, where I live, it's an option, so I do.

I have examined and pondered the possible scenarios and I have been in a
situation where I very nearly was killed and my girlfriend raped and
killed because I wasn't armed. I managed to trick the perps, but it was
a very close shave. That's when I changed my mind about firearms and
legally armed myself. I discovered on that occasion that my life was
worth defending and that the criminals that showed up in real life were
not the imaginary ones I wouldn't be willing to kill.

No amount of preaching is going to change my mind (or yours) about this
subject, so why don't we drop it. Basically the disagreement is a
theological one, so further discussion will be futile. Please note that
I'm not trying to make you wrong or convert you. Please show me the same
respect.


-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
Re: Securing a desktop PC [message #266903 ] So, 14 Mai 2006 17:17
Arthur Hagen  
Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't intend to require you to go armed. In fact, since I suppose
> you are in the UK,

Connecticut, for the last few years. Seen from OK, that might appear to be
UK, of course :-)

Regards,
--
*Art
Vorheriges Thema:[I] Horticultural Questions
Nächstes Thema:[I] Minor computer irritation
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 05:48:49 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09911 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered