That was a somewhat interesting post but this part confuses me - "I drew the line at wedding rings and wedding bands. I never stole a person's wedding rings."
How can you tell a ring is a wedding ring? Do wedding rings have some sort of special design? I thought a wedding ring could be any ring. I am married but neither my spouse or I own any jewelry including wedding rings so I don't know.
If you are wondering about the origin of that custom, it's because Jewish weddings are consecrated with a ring, technically any item of value works, but a ring is the custom.
The bride who receives the item must be able to tell more or less what it's worth (so that there is no falsehood involved). If the ring is decorated, or if it's made of more than one metal, or if it has jewels on it, this is more difficult.
It's hard to tell just by looking what the quality of a Jewel is, but everyone knows that gold is worth something, and you can see how much gold there is. (So a hollow ring would also be a problem.)
As a result the guidance is that wedding rings are always plain gold bands.
How many rings would the average person have other than their wedding ring or band? They might have a college ring but isn't worth stealing (initials, graduation year, sometimes a name, all easily identifiable by a pawn shop) unless you can melt it down or have a trusted source that can do that job. We don't have much in the way of jewelry but our parents do and they only have their wedding rings/bands and college rings.
If someone did have other rings, I'd think they'd be visually different, wedding rings typically have one large diamond set with other jewels and a band is dead obvious as it's so plain. A ring with multiple small diamonds or other gemstones (emerald, ruby, etc) would almost always be a safe bet, especially if a ring similar to the traditional wedding ring was available for comparison.
>> "wedding rings typically have one large diamond set with other jewels and a band is dead obvious as it's so plain."
I thought they were usually plain (just the ring, no adornments). Engagement rings tend to be fancier (diamonds etc.) but maybe practice varies between regions.
Your point was to say you and your SO don't wear rings.
Did you grow up under a rock? Have you never, ever interacted with people wearing wedding rings?
If not, fine, fair enough. Judging from your comment history, this doesn't seem to be the case.
To answer your question, you can tell if something is "a thing" by comparing said "thing" to other known and accepted "like things." Does that not make sense?
> Your point was to say you and your SO don't wear rings.
No it wasn't. It was asking what make a wedding ring identifiable as a wedding ring. It confuses me that someone can identify something as a wedding ring when it isn't being worn - I thought that wedding rings were any ring. I know that engagement rings usually have a diamond but I think other rings can have diamonds too?
>Did you grow up under a rock? Have you never, ever interacted with people wearing wedding rings?
Sure, but I don't pay much attention to other people's jewelry because that's just not something I care about. My parents didn't wear wedding rings or any other types of jewelry at all so I guess I did grow up under a rock. I don't think my aunts or uncles wore them either, or does my mother-in-law, - they just aren't "a thing" in my family so I'm out of the cultural loop. Its totally and completely out of my knowledge area. I like learning something new so I figured it was worth asking!
Judging by the variety of comments it seems that there is a variety and the theft's "standards" didn't make sense.
>“In the past, people thought of offenders as impulsive, indiscriminate, opportunistic – they didn’t think they were very clever because they usually aren’t well educated,”
There's two categories of burglars: those that are clever and those who actually are impulsive, indiscriminate, and opportunistic. To group them all together is really untrue else "crimes of opportunity" wouldn't be a thing.. I've seen cases of some really dumb and obviously unplanned burglaries - including the time my own house was burglarized. I've seen even dumber petty thefts - those that were impulsive, indiscriminate, opportunistic to a T. Example: a friend of mine had a bottle of Gatorade stolen from her car but the robber left the cash in the (unlocked) glove compartment.
I've had a car window broken to steal a stereo that on a good day would have brought $5. Basic smash and grab in a bad neighborhood. I was more pissed at the screwdriver marks on the paint than losing the stereo.
OTOH, a friend of mine had her car broken into around the same time in the mid-90's and the factory radio was stolen professionally. The thief only broke the tiny side quarter window and then reached in to open the door. It was a very neat, precise theft. All the screws and trim were in a tidy pile on the driver's seat. The stereo was carefully extracted with no damage to the dashboard. The thief quite clearly took his time to do this. She speculated that he probably saw them get out of the car and go into her friend's house where there was a party so he knew he had time.
Pedant, correct thyself: the first citation for "burglarize" in the OED is 1871, and the first citation for "burgle" is ... 1872.
(The first definition for "burglarize" in the OED is "To rob burglariously", which is wonderful. For "burgle" they note that it's "a back-formation < burglar n., of very recent appearance, though English Law Latin had a verb burgulare of same meaning. Orig. colloq. or humorous." They define it too using the adverb "burglariously".)
Language changes and adapts with time and what is correct can change in years and even months.
If the vast majority of people say burglarize - then that is correct. The purpose of language is communicating information - and if the information is being communicated in a manner that most people can agree on the meaning of the information; then the language is doing its job.
This is why you can google something on Yahoo. The 'official' (and recent) definition specifies the Google search engine, but many people use the word "google" as a synonym for "search".
I love getting into arguments with people who treat their dictionaries like a religious text then using words with modern meanings that have nothing to do with their etymology.
I'm not sure about that. Using 'hoovering' as a synonym for vacuuming is really common at home. But Google as a brand is so strong that I'm not convinced people really disassociate the verb from the search engine.
That's so funny! Around here people never say "I'm going to hoover the floor" they say "I am going to bissell the floor!!" Bissell must have a greater market share around here!
Around where? Is this in an entire community, or merely your family group? I've never heard the name used like that before, and find it hard to believe it would displace 'Hoover' as a colloquialism. Also, aren't Bissel devices mechanical sweepers, not vacuum cleaners?
For English, this is absolutely true. (I believe some other languages are, at least officially, less fluid -- such as French, policed by the Academie Francaise).
And it does turn out, it seems, that 'burglarize' is legit (and I failed to do my homework). But I still dislike it intensely: why use more syllables/more letters when you could use fewer with exactly the same meaning? (I also have a preference, albeit weaker, for oriented over orientated, and so on).
Can we just agree that if you are in the US feel free to add -ize to anything as part of a greater trend to verb every word (although would you 'verb' a word or would you 'verbize' it?)
If you are from a non-us english speaking country (commonwealth mostly) and went through school before the internet blurred languages then burgled will be more familiar
The article is frustratingly vague about what the actual strategies used by burglars are, giving little useful information about what can be done to blunt your losses.
Instead, Nee says one trick could be to find something unexpected that doesn’t fit the usual script of a crime, breaking the burglar out of the automatic, below-conscious processing. “That’s likely to make them abandon the crime,” Nee suggests. Playing a recording of someone’s footsteps, or even something as simple as gentle white noise, might be distracting enough to perturb the burglar. Equally, you could lay out your house in a distinct way – anything that confuses their automatic mental maps. “The thing is, you have to be innovative over time because burglars will get used to whatever you do,” she says.
and
For the time being, there are some easy measures that we could all take. Besides the obvious (remembering to close windows and lock doors) Nee thinks one of the best strategies is to pretend that someone is always in the house; almost all the burglars she has interviewed report that they will do anything to avoid a face-to-face encounter
I'm pretty sure that's not specifically pointed at any person. It means that you should try to stay ahead of the curve.
For example, it could be recommended to install motion-sensing lights. Burglars figure out dead zones to those lights to avoid them. Then you upgrade to a video feed. Then burglars figure out those dead zones. Then you upgrade to cameras on a timed swivel. And so on...
I think that's not what was meant. The way I understood (and I agree) is that if you have to go great lengths to stay ahead of burglars, etc you should consider changing the neighborhood. Well, unless you are well known, flashing cash and sports cars but you get the point.
We'd just moved into our house, went out to supper, came back to a broken window. Inside, cupboards were open, drawers pulled - and they were all empty. We hadn't put anything away yet. The burglar went away frustrated and empty-handed.
Nah. It was a neighbor kid. Just got out of a short term in prison, they were having a 'welcome home' party, he got drunk and came over and tried to burglarize us. Found him sleeping in the bushes.
Tends to signal "I'm off hunting/shooting, it would be a really good idea to finish before I'm back...."
Particularly strong in Texas, at least until the law is judicially nullified as it's been in other states in the nation like Oklahoma, where you to can use lethal force to stop a theft, as in someone walking away holding your TV, after a verbal warning.
Not where I live (South Africa). You'll be targeted for your gun. I suppose one benefit of the U.S. gun laws is that they're so easy to source that there's no need to steal yours.
I thought it would be interesting to have a geo tracking device made up that looks exactly like a credit card. It could be activated by removing it from a wallet. Then leave it on your dresser or in a decoy wallet in the house. So if someone automatically picked it up it would send a trail of where it had been to the cloud and later you would know which way the burglar went after they left your house.
With chip and pin cards it would be even easier, a card with the chip programmed to alert the cashier when ever it is used.
I did something similar with a briefcase when my car was being broken into multiple times. Except it also had pepper spray rigged to spray when it was forced open.
In high school one of my friends had some of his things stolen from a locker room by a member of the opposing team. His phone was with the things and his things were eventually recovered because they tracked it to the thief's house.
True. It might be because the research has not involved empirical tests of any such practical information, as far as I could tell from the article.
My vague takeaway is that burglars rely on patterns of typical household layouts and homeowner behaviors so that they can do their work, as it were, at a higher level of abstraction than an amateur can. Anything that you can do to frustrate their assumptions of typicality, then, might lower their efficiency or discourage them from attempting a burglary in the first place. Perhaps some clever applications of home automation tech could be employed. Or if you're fortunate enough to keep an inconsistent schedule, that too could help.
Yeah this seems to be the case. I've actually read one of Dr. Nee's papers recently (since I'm interested in VR). My takeaway without being a psychologist is that there are stored patterns of navigating houses and a general understanding of the starting situation (all burglars took the rear entry, all students took the front entry). Link to the paper (somewhat vague on the details as well but gives a better overview than the article, should be free access):
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1068316X.2014.989...
yep, pretty thin on this front and not much more than common-sense.
My personal tip: when away from home for a while, I try to leave an electric timer connected to a light.
I also use a timer-based radio tuned to a channel with lots of speaking (rather than music). Just be careful. I once left it too loud and the neighbours downstairs complained... (luckily it was running on my pc, so I could ssh into it and turn the volume down remotely).
We have an HOA. For years, I've been getting crap from them about not parking one of our two vehicles in the garage. I work from home, so IMO the best bet for me is to keep my car on the driveway.
We had a house a couple doors down burglarized twice within 6 months. I'm still being stubborn and keeping one of my cars on our driveway whenever I can.
And with that, I realized that Amazon doesn't have a feature I wish it did -- wishlisting an item that won't be available for several months. Perhaps that is on purpose. If you don't want to forget about it, you're then forced to order it then and there.
Could be an ongoing A/B test? While it's probably impossible to be successful in e-commerce without A/B testing, I hate the gaslighting effect it can have.
OA suggests that the average exploit takes a few minutes.
So, find baroque and time consuming ways of storing high value stuff. Having said that, you would be hard put to find £1000 worth of stuff in my humble home even given an hour or two, unless you happen to be stealing on commission for a circle of book dealers...
