ATT's customers should be able to leave, because ATT sucks.

AT&T's customers would need a viable alternative first.

Err... steeenking.

The ones with the skunk glands?

Badgers? We don't need no steeeking badgers.

Way to take the high road. You could just as easily have said, "Keep on living," or "Breathe."

... to the obligatory Far Side Eggs and baby cartoon.

You can easily put the gun somewhere safe.

Ah, but if the gun is somewhere safe, you're unlikely to be able to get to it quickly. For a gun to be viable for self defense, you need to be able to get it and load it in a very short period of time. Otherwise, you might as well invest in a squirt gun. If you put the gun somewhere that's actually safe from a child, you're also making it considerably harder for you to get access to the weapon quickly. Those critical seconds could mean the difference between life and death.

In any case, if I was going to use an electronic lock, I would much rather use a RFID lock over a fingerprint lock. There would be a much smaller chance for error.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable alternative. I certainly don't think laws need to mandate a specific technology, just a minimum certification level or some such, which different weapons could achieve in different ways.

Also, if you have children in the house, they should be taught gun safety and that if they even touch any gun without your permission, there will be hell to pay.

I completely agree with you about teaching your kids gun safety, and even though I don't intend to have guns in my house, when I eventually have kids, they will learn how to properly unload a firearm. The problem with having guns in houses with kids comes when they invite other kids over. Chances are, your kids' friends haven't been taught about guns, and they may not know not to touch them, or worse, might think that they're toy guns. That's why particularly in households with kids, having some form of electronic safety is a really, really good idea.

Now put that same firearm in a household with kids. Do you really want a gun that might fire because somebody got curious? You shouldn't be required to use the digital lock, but it should be required to be present on the firearm as a mandatory safety feature, just like you can disable the air bags in your car, but by default, they come enabled.

Given her low approval ratings, the only reason Feinstein is in office at all is because the Republicans keep miraculously finding people even more unelectable.

I'm pretty liberal and fairly progressive, but I'm not 100% anti-gun, so your statement is certainly not broadly generalizable outside of conversations in the media, in my experience. I voted against a gun law just a few months ago, though it passed anyway. I wanted to vote for it, because the requirement that weapons be stored securely (either in a safe or with a trigger lock) was good, and the requirement for timely reporting of stolen firearms was good, but I couldn't vote for it because it also contained a ban on large magazines, which violates the fourth amendment by depriving people of property without due process—in other words, eminent domain all over again.

We do, IMO, need to mandate some changes, like gun safety classes for anyone purchasing a firearm for the first time, electronic fingerprint safeties on all new firearms, etc. And I wouldn't personally want to have a firearm in my house because I think the safety risk exceeds the safety benefit, at least in my neighborhood, but that doesn't mean I think that my opinion should be forced on everyone else. That's part of being a true liberal. Anyone who believes otherwise is a progressive authoritarian, not a progressive liberal.

You're assuming that the speed at which the problems are solved is positively correlated with fundamental understanding of the concepts. For problems like multiplication, this isn't really the case.

Not only is it not the case, in highly intelligent people, for large problem sets, it is often reverse-correlated. When I was a kid, if you gave me 50 math problems, I'd take longer to solve them than the folks who were making Fs in the class—not because I was struggling, but because after the first five or ten problems, I was so bored that I'd spend a few seconds working on a problem, followed by fifteen minutes daydreaming about anything else but the subject at hand.

Well, as a matter of fact, the process you propose has been in use for over a year ...

No, it hasn't. My parents have gone through security as "TSA Pre" travelers. There's remarkably little difference between that and normal travel, from what I've seen, and at most, no more difference than the difference between buying a first-class ticket and a coach ticket (separate line). Yes, in theory, you have to do a few less things, but you still get in line, stick your bag on a belt, walk through a magnetometer or a porn scanner, then wait for your bag.

What I was proposing is a separate line in which you hand them a card, they swipe it, verify your face against the data from their database, and you walk straight through security and out the other side. No putting bags on a belt, no magnetometer, no porn scanner. Just walk through.

The true answer is to allow people to get through a full background check in exchange for skipping the screening process entirely. Frequent travelers (the majority) would do so, and this would cut the number of people waiting in line to almost nothing.

But they won't do that, because the TSA is primarily a jobs program, not a security screening service.

Even if you're right, the fact remains that security researchers have shown that the bug in question didn't exist in Secure Transport as of the 10.8.5 sources. Because Secure Transport is open source, you can verify that yourself if you don't believe me.

Snow Leopard (10.6) is not vulnerable to this bug, since Apple did not switch from OpenSSL to their own SSL/TLS library back then yet.

No, that's not correct at all. First, it doesn't affect 10.8.5, either, which blows that theory. Second, Secure Transport was introduced way back in 10.2, and has been used for Foundation and Core Foundation SSL negotiation since at least 10.4, according to various security vulnerability reports (and probably earlier). In other words, this has absolutely nothing to do with Apple "switching" anything. It's just a bug, and a fairly recent bug at that.