Why no remote unlock?

"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

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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".

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.

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.