I've heard of, but never (until now) known what to make of a product called "LoJack."
Turns out (as most people reading this probably already know) that LoJack is a security system for cars (you can read the Wikipedia entry for it here.) It's an interesting innovation, as it sends out a radio signal that the police can use to track your vehicle if it gets stolen (or, for the conspiracy theorists out there, to track you in your vehicle!). I find it a bit hard to believe that car thieves haven't already hacked it to the extent that they can disable it within minutes of driving your car away, but the literature says otherwise. It also lines up quite nicely with an idea I've long had, which is that anything we own that's valuable ought to have an RFID (Radio Frequency ID) transmitter in it that can't be disabled. But I digress...
At any rate, the name LoJack just doesn't work for me. It's described as "the antithesis of hijack," which is cute - and somewhat clever - but somehow unpleasant. Maybe my bias against it stems from the fact that I think any "jacking" of my car that isn't done in order to change a flat tire is a bad thing, and I have trouble getting past that. I suppose I should really think of it as something that's being done to the car thieves, rather than to me or my car (the cops are "jacking" my car back from the bad guys) but I'm just not there yet.
How does everyone else react to that particular product's name?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
To be blunt, it's lame.
I took the name to be something like "a low key way of jacking the car". They should have used a more identifiable term, even if it was as generic and "Protect-a-lot" or something. (Well, maybe not that one...)
Yeah, lojack didn't have the connection to hijack for me either.
Out of context I though perhaps it was a new beer name.
It was likely a focus group name! LOL! Even something like "Busted" would have been better...or Protect-a-lot - that made me smile!
Post a Comment