Ever heard those crazy bastards claim "loud pipes save lives"?

A REAL motorcycle makes plenty of noise, but by the time anyone hears it, the bike is a couple hundred yards out in front of them. The thunder always follows the lightning. Loud pipes are compensation for 75 year old technology that won't run any faster than the family car. It's amazing how many people have spent all that money on a Harley, but either the machine won't run over 80 mph, or the rider is to scared to exceed 80. My commuter is 33 years old, only 500 cc, and it will run 100 mph from one fill-up to the next. The other bike is only 7 years old, 600 cc, and it runs well over 150. I don't know HOW MUCH over 150, because I've not had the opportunity to find out.

Loud noise? I sure as hell can't hear the exhaust, for all the wind noise. Attention? Don't need it, don't want it.

I didn't take part in this little thing. But, I'll mention that I have downloaded malware, intentionally, just to look at it. "Hey, Dad, I found a site that does a driveby installation of crap. Don't go there!" So, I load the site, let it do it's thing, find and decompile the executable, nod my head, and say, "That's pretty slick - I wish they'd find the bastard and castrate him."

It should be noted that almost nothing runs on my locked down Unix-like boxes. Sure, Javascript enabled allows them to hijack the browser, and take it over, but that doesn't take over the system!

"were"

I've never had reason to avoid them - but I've never really sought their goods out either. Suddenly, I'm happy that I haven't. An old established name like that - and now this. Phhhttt! PNY I've simply never considered.

Fair enough. But, most developers know how to wreck their software. The guy holding the interrogation implement asks, "What is the weakest part of your encryption tool?" WHACK! "You don't need to think so long, you know the weakest part of your scheme, tell me!"

Given that answer, it would help to focus attention where WE would least want attention.

The best thing going right now, is that so many eyes ARE focused on the last "known good" version. Maybe if there is a weak link, someone will notice it. Of course, there is no guarantee at all.

My question is academic. If they got a developer into a dungeon somewhere, and applied the five dollar monkey wrench interrogation method to extract a working back door - what assurance is there that this back door doesn't work on previous versions? FUD? I thought it a reasonable question. Does an exploit in version x.xxx work on version x.xxx - 1, or x.xxx - .001, or even x.xxx - 3? In some cases, I would imagine that the exploit might work all the way back to the project's startup and milestone .01, in other cases the same exploit might not work in a very minor version update.

Well, first, a gun lock renders a gun useless - to you, as well as to anyone else. When seconds count, it only takes half a minute to unlock a lock, IF you have the key immediately at hand.

It has been suggested throughout this conversation that there are factors at work in the rise and fall of crime statistics other than mere gun ownership. Possession of a gun isn't the end-all and be-all of staying safe, only a moron would think so. But, an armed citizenry remains an important factor in personal security, as well as politics and national security.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Dr. Hupp accurately points out that the whole point of the second amendment is to protect us, the little people, from them, congress.

I would be suspicious of 7.1 just as much as 7.2. If the developers left this "message" that 7.2 might be compromised, what kind of guarantee is there that 7.1 isn't also compromised? Discussion below shows that the big difference between the two is, 7.2 won't create new encrypted volumes. The message seems to say "We've been compromised - get your stuff out of the existing volumes, because they are NOT PROTECTED!" Or, "no longer protected".

If NSA demanded keys and/or back doors, and if the NSA actually got anything for their trouble, then those keys will open backdoors into older versions as well.

If your police department can have a weapon, then your neighbor should be able to keep the same weapons.

Let me key on the "well regulated" bit for a moment. We have lost something in the past hundred or so years. We don't have hometown mlitias any more. If you should read some of the stories of units that fought in the Civil War, you will find that many soldiers fought and died with the boys they grew up with, and the elders from their own home towns. That is, the county more or less maintained it's own militia, which volunteered for service to the state in times of need. Or, in the case of the Civil War, they volunteered, as a unit, with the US Army.

So, these militias were drilling on the town square routinely, each and every year.

You have a point - the individual militiamen didn't take cannon home with them. Or gatling guns, either. They may or may not have taken their rifles (or muskets) home with them, depending on whether they bought the weapons with personal funds, or were issued by the county or state.

BUT - wherever the cannon, the gatling guns, and the government-owned small arms might have been stowed, the militia had ready access.

I'm kinda getting off of my central point though. Well regulated. At age 17, boys were expected to muster with the militia for training and drill. They were expected to continue doing so, until about age 40. And, thoughout their adult lives, they were expected to be ready for action.

Well regulated? Of COURSE they were well regulated. If the commanding officer happens to be your best buddy's grandfather, and the adjutant is your second cousin by marriage, and you went to school with all the privates, your dad is a corporal - yeah, you bet your ass that you'll stay well regulated! No way are you going to go home in disgrace, with all your freinds and family mocking you for the rest of your life!

Of equal importance - these militias were not units of the US Army, or even of the individual state's "National Guard". They were independent units, ready to respond to emergencies of any kind. They often did volunteer for service to the state, or service to the Army, but they weren't actually obligated to do so.

Let me throw an idea at you.

A man with low morals, or poor morals, isn't necessarily without morals. A guy who is willing to steal your wallet, isn't necessarily willing to kill you in cold blood.

Yes, there really are people who are capable of doing as you describe. I think I may have met a couple of them. But, you don't find them everyday, in every town across the country. Even convicts can be shocked at some of the more heinous crimes that make the news. Whatever happened to that guy Dahmer? As I recall, he was done in by other convicts who didn't want him in "their" prison.

Most cons that I have ever come into contact with actually do have some morals. Often, they are a piss-poor excuse for morality, but they pride themselves on the morals they do possess.

That's a little rude. If we all restricted ourselves to commenting on subjects in which we are experts - slashdot would appear to be abandoned. Two or three people would comment on some subjects, other subjects might have fifteen people participating. And, whatever would happen to good old AC?

No, the cell phones are merely remote sensors for the AI hidden behind the scenes. Of course, given an AI, the computational power that accompanies those sensors is probably somewhat useful as well.

Isnt' that precisely what they did recently? They built a facility for the very purpose of increasing storage by orders of magnitude? Or, did I misunderstand all those stories?

Gang violence - that seems to occupy it's own special little niche. I really don't know how to address it, either.

I am more than half convinced that the gang bangers should be encouraged to battle it out, and to kill each other off. The more of them that are dead, the safer the streets will be for honest people.

Of course, a lot of honest people will hate me for that attitude, because they have sons, brothers, cousins, or something that belongs to one gang or another.

Gangs are the refuge of the week minded, IMHO - and survival of the fittest seems to demand that they be permitted to kill each other. Those who resist the lure of the gangs seem more fit to live, again, IMHO.

That may seem harsh - but then, life is harsh.

Vicious circle kinda thing there. They had a gun problem, so they passed laws, which made the gun problem worse, so they passed more laws, which made the problem worse again. All of that, DESPITE the fact that nationwide, we see violent crimes being reduced. I am convinced that gun laws only contribute to crime rates.

Wait - to make a scientifically valid judgement, based on evidence, you ask me to interview a victim's survivor? A survivor who has almost certainly suffered through an indoctrination within that city's schools? I should try to weigh emotional appeals to my heart, in lieu of statistics, facts, and historical data? Yeah, I'm on it - see me go!