If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"pete devlin" wrote in message ... In message , KMM writes "pete devlin" wrote in message ... This year I saw the swapped ski method fail leaving two angry people with one useless ski each. Fortunately the thief realised his mistake within 100yds and we found the discarded skis the next morning. Any further and they would never have been found. Emmm, that's a success then is it not? I never claimed it was foolproof, just a bit of a deterrent. Hardly a success. They were stolen. The guys were just lucky that we did a search around a big area whilst they were down the cop shop reporting it. Its a success in that the thief threw them away because he had two mismatched skis and the people involved soon had their skis back. If they were my skis I would count the excercise as a success. Didnt stop them lifting the skis but stopped him going down on the mountain with them. Hassle aside, its not exactly a failure. As most cases of theft are basically opportunistic (as proven here) its still worth doing IMO. Think this one has been flogged to death now. Deterrence is all you can achieve really, if a thief wants them, he'll have them. Agreed but it would make me ever so slightly happier knowing that some lowlife was walking off the mountain with two odd skis. You might lose out but so will they! If you have to stand guard 24/7 it's not worth going. My sarcasm was directed at the fact that most people here have skied for years, they were splitting their skis up when the only way you could tell skis apart was the different grain patterns! What goes around, comes around! Only a matter of time before some marketing monkey gets back to that one K. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:16:41 +0000, Champ wrote:
On 24 Jan 2005 03:31:32 -0800, "Sammy" wrote: Because by even thinking "my skis will be stolen if I don't do this" you are spoiling your lunch and behaving like a mistrustful and fearful person. Most undignified. Unfashionable tho it is, I subscribe to this view. Frankly, I think I'd rather take the small chance that my board will be stolen than spoil every single lunch stop on the mountain. Well yes, but he's advocating not even taking simple precautions like splitting a pair of skis, which a) takes no effort at all and b) doesn't ever seem to interfere with my enjoyment of a decent lunch :-) The same reasoning leads me to not have smoke detectors in my house. I've always resisted the idea too, although I can't quite see how this reasoning works. If you have smoke detectors, you'er more likely to worry about the house catching fire? Can't see it myself. -- Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom) Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't the ski/boot manufacturers build an identification/theft deterrent
system into the skis? I am thinking along the lines of the tamper resistant hologram system: 1. Make a small depression somewhere fairly prominent. 2. Glue in a holographic logo at manufacture. 3. Sell the ski/boots with a tranparent sticky patch backed with some glue such that once stuck to the hologram it can't be removed without runining it. 4. Customer writes name over hologram and sticks down patch on top. This technology exists and would be a real deterrent. Note that I have added boots to this - not so much because they are often stolen but I have been to chalets where there are no individual lockers and the wrong boots and skiis have been taken by accident. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Ace" wrote in message ... The same reasoning leads me to not have smoke detectors in my house. I've always resisted the idea too, although I can't quite see how this reasoning works. If you have smoke detectors, you'er more likely to worry about the house catching fire? Can't see it myself. It's all about probabilities: Compare the cost of insuring your cheap skis against theft for a week versus insuring your very expensive house against fire for a year and you can see that having a serious fire is wildly improbable. When you figure that smoke detectors are only really useful for saving you from being overcome by smoke whilst asleep; that you are only asleep 1/3 of each day; that most fires are started by elictrical faults and most electrical items are switched off at night and that in many if not most cases you would be woken by the smell and noise before the smoke got you and you realise it is probably not statistically worth even the tiny expense of a smoke detector. If you worry about a fire in your house you should logically never drive or cross a road and certainly never ski. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Sammy wrote:
Misread your second line (oops): I'm not sure the two (locking your house at night and your skis at lunchtime) are logically related in any way. But now you mention it, I expect the risks of someone trying your door at night are not worth worrying about either. People in my village leave their skis lying outside their house at night if that's any help :-) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
OT now but never mind....
Felly sgrifennodd Nick Hounsome : It's all about probabilities: Compare the cost of insuring your cheap skis against theft for a week versus insuring your very expensive house against fire for a year and you can see that having a serious fire is wildly improbable. You might get cheaper house insurance though if you have smoke alarms. When you figure that smoke detectors are only really useful for saving you from being overcome by smoke whilst asleep; that you are only asleep 1/3 of each day; that most fires are started by elictrical faults and most electrical items are switched off at night But some of the ones most likely to cause a fire due to an electrical fault (fridge, freezer etc) are not. and that in many if not most cases you would be woken by the smell and noise before the smoke got you Unfortunately not true: the smoke makes you more sleepy and unlikely to notice the fire. and you realise it is probably not statistically worth even the tiny expense of a smoke detector. There's nothing to be gained by not having a smoke detector (except a few quid; they cost next to nothing). If you worry about a fire in your house you should logically never drive or cross a road and certainly never ski. I don't worry so much about fire in my house; I have smoke alarms! So I'm relatively more likely to die in a skiing accident than in a house fire. That's a good thing; I'd rather go out that way Adrian -- Adrian Shaw ais@ Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber. Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac. http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais uk |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Adrian D. Shaw" wrote in message ... OT now but never mind.... Felly sgrifennodd Nick Hounsome : It's all about probabilities: Compare the cost of insuring your cheap skis against theft for a week versus insuring your very expensive house against fire for a year and you can see that having a serious fire is wildly improbable. You might get cheaper house insurance though if you have smoke alarms. IF you can it would probably be the best argument for them When you figure that smoke detectors are only really useful for saving you from being overcome by smoke whilst asleep; that you are only asleep 1/3 of each day; that most fires are started by elictrical faults and most electrical items are switched off at night But some of the ones most likely to cause a fire due to an electrical fault (fridge, freezer etc) are not. Where do you get the idea that they are most likely? and that in many if not most cases you would be woken by the smell and noise before the smoke got you Unfortunately not true: the smoke makes you more sleepy and unlikely to notice the fire. Less likely NOT unlikely - In most house fires nobody is killed. and you realise it is probably not statistically worth even the tiny expense of a smoke detector. There's nothing to be gained by not having a smoke detector (except a few quid; they cost next to nothing). "there is nothing to be gained except" = "there is something to be gained" plus it depends on your definition of next to nothing - Would you buy two in case one fails (they cost next to nothing)? Would you buy 3 just to be sure? If you worry about a fire in your house you should logically never drive or cross a road and certainly never ski. I don't worry so much about fire in my house; I have smoke alarms! So I'm relatively more likely to die in a skiing accident than in a house fire. That's a good thing; I'd rather go out that way I'd rather go in my sleep in a chalet fire on a ski holiday (last day of course) :-) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Nick Hounsome wrote:
"Adrian D. Shaw" wrote in message ... OT now but never mind.... Felly sgrifennodd Nick Hounsome : When you figure that smoke detectors are only really useful for saving you from being overcome by smoke whilst asleep; that you are only asleep 1/3 of each day; that most fires are started by elictrical faults and most electrical items are switched off at night But some of the ones most likely to cause a fire due to an electrical fault (fridge, freezer etc) are not. Where do you get the idea that they are most likely? Fridges and freezers are kept on constantly, normally for a period of several years (we've got one that's 10 years old). They have motors in them (can easily catch fire if they go wrong) and produce heat and they're normally kept in a confined space. The only things more likely to cause a fire are cookers, heaters, tumble driers and washing machines. Those aren't usually used during the night and certainly not all night (except heaters - does anyone have electric heaters any more?) and that in many if not most cases you would be woken by the smell and noise before the smoke got you Unfortunately not true: the smoke makes you more sleepy and unlikely to notice the fire. Less likely NOT unlikely - In most house fires nobody is killed. Fair enough. Just semantics really. You'll probably be woken up by the smoke alarm well before you're woken up by the noise of the fire and certainly before the smell of the smoke. and you realise it is probably not statistically worth even the tiny expense of a smoke detector. There's nothing to be gained by not having a smoke detector (except a few quid; they cost next to nothing). "there is nothing to be gained except" = "there is something to be gained" plus it depends on your definition of next to nothing - Would you buy two in case one fails (they cost next to nothing)? Would you buy 3 just to be sure? We've got 3. One on the ground floor and two on the first floor. They cost 8 quid for the lot. I suspect they'll never be needed but 8 quid doesn't seem like a lot to be woken up if I'm about to be suffocated by smoke. If you worry about a fire in your house you should logically never drive or cross a road and certainly never ski. I don't worry so much about fire in my house; I have smoke alarms! So I'm relatively more likely to die in a skiing accident than in a house fire. That's a good thing; I'd rather go out that way I'd rather go in my sleep in a chalet fire on a ski holiday (last day of course) :-) :-) -- "Fighting terrorists with a military invasion is like trying to kill a bee by shooting its beehive with a shotgun." - Anonymous, USENET http://www.ollieclark.com/acronyms.html |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:55:23 GMT, "Nick Hounsome"
wrote: "Ace" wrote in message .. . The same reasoning leads me to not have smoke detectors in my house. I've always resisted the idea too, although I can't quite see how this reasoning works. If you have smoke detectors, you'er more likely to worry about the house catching fire? Can't see it myself. It's all about probabilities: Compare the cost of insuring your cheap skis against theft for a week versus insuring your very expensive house against fire for a year and you can see that having a serious fire is wildly improbable. When you figure that smoke detectors are only really useful for saving you from being overcome by smoke whilst asleep; that you are only asleep 1/3 of each day; that most fires are started by elictrical faults and most electrical items are switched off at night and that in many if not most cases you would be woken by the smell and noise before the smoke got you and you realise it is probably not statistically worth even the tiny expense of a smoke detector. Actually, that's not my argument at all :-) My dislike of smoke alarms is based on the fact that they go off if you make toast or grill pretty much anything with fat in it. So, I balance the absolute certainty that they will **** me off against the very small outside chance that they will save my life, and decide against fitting them. -- Champ |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Ollie Clark" wrote in message ... Nick Hounsome wrote: "Adrian D. Shaw" wrote in message ... OT now but never mind.... Felly sgrifennodd Nick Hounsome : When you figure that smoke detectors are only really useful for saving you from being overcome by smoke whilst asleep; that you are only asleep 1/3 of each day; that most fires are started by elictrical faults and most electrical items are switched off at night But some of the ones most likely to cause a fire due to an electrical fault (fridge, freezer etc) are not. Where do you get the idea that they are most likely? Fridges and freezers are kept on constantly, normally for a period of several years (we've got one that's 10 years old). They have motors in them (can easily catch fire if they go wrong) and produce heat and they're normally kept in a confined space. The only things more likely to cause a fire are cookers, heaters, tumble driers and washing machines. So fridges and frezers are not "some of the most likely" then are they! Those aren't usually used during the night and certainly not all night (except heaters - does anyone have electric heaters any more?) That was my point. and that in many if not most cases you would be woken by the smell and noise before the smoke got you Unfortunately not true: the smoke makes you more sleepy and unlikely to notice the fire. Less likely NOT unlikely - In most house fires nobody is killed. Fair enough. Just semantics really. You'll probably be woken up by the smoke alarm well before you're woken up by the noise of the fire and certainly before the smell of the smoke. and you realise it is probably not statistically worth even the tiny expense of a smoke detector. There's nothing to be gained by not having a smoke detector (except a few quid; they cost next to nothing). "there is nothing to be gained except" = "there is something to be gained" plus it depends on your definition of next to nothing - Would you buy two in case one fails (they cost next to nothing)? Would you buy 3 just to be sure? We've got 3. One on the ground floor and two on the first floor. They cost 8 quid for the lot. I suspect they'll never be needed but 8 quid doesn't seem like a lot to be woken up if I'm about to be suffocated by smoke. No but it seems like a lot to not be woken up by a fire that is never going to happen. I know I'm being picky here but this is just like the thread about helmets - unless you know the actual statistics and have done a cost benefit analysis you don't know whether it makes sense and end up spending your safety money on the wrong things (c.f. spending billions on railway safety systems or buy insurance for the electrical goods you buy at Comet/Dixons). If you worry about a fire in your house you should logically never drive or cross a road and certainly never ski. I don't worry so much about fire in my house; I have smoke alarms! So I'm relatively more likely to die in a skiing accident than in a house fire. That's a good thing; I'd rather go out that way I'd rather go in my sleep in a chalet fire on a ski holiday (last day of course) :-) :-) -- "Fighting terrorists with a military invasion is like trying to kill a bee by shooting its beehive with a shotgun." - Anonymous, USENET http://www.ollieclark.com/acronyms.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Probability of Getting Good Race Skis at Small Ski Shops ?? | Tim Kelley | Nordic Skiing | 26 | October 27th 04 06:41 PM |
A quick thanks to all | Lisa Horton | Alpine Skiing | 12 | May 6th 04 04:31 PM |
Icing on waxless skis | MB | Nordic Skiing | 10 | March 26th 04 03:46 PM |
Near fatal ski incident | Me | Nordic Skiing | 22 | February 27th 04 01:47 PM |
Best advice for a first time xc'er | VISAMAN | Nordic Skiing | 17 | November 19th 03 11:20 PM |