h a l f b a k e r y
Not so much a thought experiment as a single neuron misfire.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
I was recently at an airport, and while waiting I noticed a "staff-
only" type door with a numerical keypad lock. A closer look at
the lock showed that it was almost entirely wear-free except
for the "1" and "9" keys. Furthermore, there was clearly a lot
more wear on the "1". From this, it's not
difficult to dramatically
cut the number of possible combinations that open the lock.
Add in human tendencies such as laziness, and I thought that
there was a 50% chance the combination was 1119. I wandered
over and tried. I was right, and illicit access to a cleaning closet
Such factors defeat the purpose of the lock, which is,
presumably, to deny the public access to mop buckets. So what
can we do?
Lock manufacturers can recommend that customers change the
combination frequently, but it won't happen. So, after the lock
is made, it's put through an additional process that randomly
distresses 2-3 keys. Then, in service, it will be a lot more
difficult to determine from wear patterns what the lock
||How about the wrong number scrawled someplace in sharpie?
You input it and it blows up.
||//How about the wrong number scrawled someplace in
||Nice touch. Piece of old painter's tape, faded, maybe even
crossed out, but with green pen, so it's mostly visible. We
could branch out, a door that LOOKS like it's propped open
with a wad of paper, but actually isn't, removing the paper
makes the lock explode.
||Needs more explosions but [+] anyway
||There are "touch screen" keypads that randomly display the
digits, so you aren't pressing the same spots all the time.
||//Needs more explosions but [+] anyay//
Perfect glitter-bomb application. Got photo, virality, chagrin. Film at 11.