just for the record:

given that the thief is, as we have concluded, not reading this, hell NO do i think that solution ought be scrapped -- never did:

(short version)

"i suggest the solution be scrapped" was in light of the possibility of being 'overheard.' 

didn't know how to say that. i thought it was so good in fact that i wanted to get together in person forthwith to nab the fucker.

(long version)

given the notorious  properties of hindsight, i agree in advance that i may not have chosen the best approach but:

"i suggest the solution be scrapped" was in light of the possibility of being 'overheard,' which it seems is agreed is 'not possible,' (and which i would agree would be unlikely in most places, but of which, prior to this thread,  i was more inclined to think some plausible possibility existed, in the Bay Area).

however, given my premise, i had a problem: didn't know how to say that and not even further compromise an excellent idea. i thought it was so good in fact that i thought it was worthwhile to suggest such 'scrapping', wink, along with laudatory reference to the plan, (the which i thought left my 'wink' hopefully discernible), and get together in person forthwith to nab the fucker. 

thank you very much.  just saying.

*sigh*

ffaust

(long-ass post script in a smaller print to impart a paradoxicall flavour)

by way of apologia, a possibly (and hopefully) meta-recursive gloss of this author's motive in opting to post the above: i only just found out ten years ago that i am not exactly always the most concise, clear, direct and/or comprehend-able  with respect to my approach to communication, particularly if/when i think the situation calls for some form of preferentially targeted subtext (think shibboleth).

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:28 PM, <hol@gaskill.com> wrote:

i suggest the solution be scrapped

like so many sweet sweet copper windings????

On 2015-03-26 19:53, johanna faust wrote:

that's a great idea! one problem: there is a chance the thief is reading this. i suggest the solution be scrapped, and best discussed at the next meeting, which i really want to be at, so if someone wants to give me a ride from downtown oakland in the event i am less than adequately mobile, i would gladly and quickly take them up on it.

once again, thanks @Autonomous for the suggestion, and especially for the clear and comprehensive description & instructions thereof.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Autonomous <autonomous666@gmail.com> wrote:

Since the thief steals copper I suggest setting up a nicely presented coil of copper wires discretely connected to an Arduino board on digital pin 2 and ground, with pinMode() set to INPUT_PULLUP. When the copper has been removed it will open the switch triggering an interrupt function that will log the event as well as possibly activate other devices such as a loud alarm.

Then what would you do after the thief is caught red-handed?

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Cere Mona Davis <ceremona@gmail.com> wrote:

I think that's a totally reasonable proposal.

On Mar 26, 2015 4:02 PM, "niki" <niki.shelley@gmail.com> wrote:

Why can't the 48th St. doors be the primary access to Sudo / CCL when the bookstore is closed?

Sudo / CCL & other member collective members still having full access to the building, of course, but not the general public as is currently the case.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:31 PM, <hol@gaskill.com> wrote:

unless la commune maintains primary access to their space by passing through sudo room I'd say the 2 positions are consistent

On 2015-03-26 14:52, niki wrote:
I just want to mention that there was very, very, very strong objection from Sudo Room when La Commune wanted to lock up our space and, as a result, our space has remained open at all hours.

Is this suggestion a reversal of that position?

N

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:40 PM, johanna faust <female.faust@gmail.com> wrote:

i agree. was hoping this wouldn't happen.

sigh

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Rachel Wolfsohn <rawjnana@gmail.com> wrote:

And I've thought this one through for a while, I'm not just thinking it's a good idea. It would narrow down suspects effectively, without losing our ability to share with the public, if done well

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Rachel Wolfsohn <rawjnana@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree. Locks on Sudo/CCL, all three doors, so that members can actually close up the equipment whether commons is open or closed!

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Ryan <yandoryn@gmail.com> wrote:

Or stealing my only cell phone charger _out of my backpack_.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Jake <jake@spaz.org> wrote:
the other day i noticed a bunch of copper wires I had near the robot were gone. I thought it was strange that they were all taken.

today Rob mentioned that someone has taken all the copper windings off of his project. He also says that a week ago, his phone was stolen from where it was with his shirt, and his shirt was found outside.

We all should have seen this coming but I really don't want this to keep happening. I think we might need to start thinking about locks on the sudoroom/CCL space, on all three doors connecting the room.

when members close down the space they will be able to lock the doors and then we don't have to worry as much about people tearing apart our hard work so they can cash in copper to get a few bucks...

-jake
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss [1]

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss [1]

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss