Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:And how many were terrorists? Oh, right, zero. (Score 1) 276

by Obfuscant (#48655759) Attached to: TSA Has Record-Breaking Haul In 2014: Guns, Cannons, and Swords

You are clearly doing your best to mis-interpret literally everything I typed. Helpful tips:

Here's my helpful tip to you: write accurate statements and don't try to pretend there are multiple meanings for the phrase "cabin pressure stabilizes" or "closest airport". And then when you get caught in multiple mistakes in one posting, don't try killing the messenger, use it as a reminder to preview what you write before you submit.

Comment: Re:Cannons? (Score 1) 276

by Obfuscant (#48655579) Attached to: TSA Has Record-Breaking Haul In 2014: Guns, Cannons, and Swords

Presumably we're talking about a very light cannon here, otherwise it'd exceed the passenger's carry on weight allowance, which is usually about 20-30 pounds.

I have never once had my carry-on weighed. And once I carried on about 40 pounds specifically so I could meet the 50 pound checked limit.

Comment: Re:And how many were terrorists? Oh, right, zero. (Score 1) 276

by Obfuscant (#48655473) Attached to: TSA Has Record-Breaking Haul In 2014: Guns, Cannons, and Swords

And if someone accidentally forgets to check in their weapons then they can be politely reminded that they need to do so and have their bags sent to check-in instead of having their property confiscated.

You want a TSA officer in the security checkpoint line having enough discretion to try to differentiate between someone who actually forgot he had a weapon and someone who is trying to sneak one past because he wants to use it on board? How many attempts should someone get to sneak a gun through the line so he can finally succeed when it isn't detected? If all that happens when he's caught is the gun is politely handed back to him and he's told to go to check it, what stops him from trying again, and again?

Comment: Re:And how many were terrorists? Oh, right, zero. (Score 1) 276

by Obfuscant (#48655381) Attached to: TSA Has Record-Breaking Haul In 2014: Guns, Cannons, and Swords

That was GP's whole point: anybody stupid enough (or forgetful enough) to try to carry something like this onto a plane just isn't much of a threat.

What is the point of this argument? Are you saying that it's ok to allow people to carry guns onto a plane because those who forget to check their weapons aren't much of a threat? Are you saying that TSA agents who paw through your carry-on should be making judgement calls to differentiate between those who were just too stupid or forgetful to check a gun and those who are saying they forgot to check it when caught? I don't know why it matters if some people could be forgetful or stupid in this matter. What difference should it make in the process?

Comment: Re:And how many were terrorists? Oh, right, zero. (Score 1) 276

by Obfuscant (#48655321) Attached to: TSA Has Record-Breaking Haul In 2014: Guns, Cannons, and Swords

In both cases, don't bother buying flares or starter caps; all you need is the appropriate suitcase, gun case, and lock.

All you need is ammunition. Buy a cheap box of 22 or shotgun shells.

Implied is that they will not be able to take anything out of the luggage, while you are watching them.

I don't know why you think that is implied. I think you infer it incorrectly.

Comment: Re:And how many were terrorists? Oh, right, zero. (Score 1) 276

by Obfuscant (#48655221) Attached to: TSA Has Record-Breaking Haul In 2014: Guns, Cannons, and Swords

If you put enough holes in the plane, then the pilot will have to descend until the cabin pressure stabilizes.

No, he'll have to descend until it reaches a partial pressure of oxygen that will not kill anyone. You can have a "stabilized" cabin pressure of "very low" at 35,000 feet, but once the short-term oxy generators run out people will be passing out and some may die.

And if the holes are in the pilot and co-pilot, and they're behind a locked door, you'll eventually descend until ground level.

Of course since there is an in-flight emergency, hel'' be descending for a landing at the nearest airport anyway.

Really? The aircraft is still flying, the cabin pressure has "stabilized", and there may be casualties, so he'll choose to land at the 5000 foot asphalt strip that's 2 miles away instead of going 30 or even 300 miles to a larger airport with on-site emergency facilities? "Closest" is not always "right" just because there is an emergency.

Comment: Re:Yup, Hegel 101 (Score 1) 580

by Obfuscant (#48629489) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

Please go do some fact checking. There are absolutely no credible sources that ever backed this nonsense

You're right. Official US government spokesmen are not a credible source. I'm sorry you missed that the comment was more of a statement about our government officials and stupid pronouncements of cause than an actual assignment of such.

I could have used the example of the riots over a newspaper cartoon.

Comment: Re:Yup, Hegel 101 (Score 0) 580

by Obfuscant (#48629039) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

Anyone believing the "terrorist" propaganda must somehow also believe that the DPRK has millions of bomb strapping terrorists stationed in the US ready to flock into Star and AMC to bomb people for watching a comedy.

Yes, because it takes millions of "bomb strapping terrorists" to blow up a bus load of civilians or a local school. Everyone knows that a successful terrorist attack takes millions of perpetrators.

Try "one". All it would take is one McVeigh-style ANFO device parked outside a big city theater to create a panic, helpfully propagated by the news media, just as they helpfully propagated the news about the millions of armed, I mean, ONE armed nut who took hostages at a Lindt store in Oz.

No movie theater manager wants to be the "one" that the "one" shows up at.

And if you doubt that a "movie" can trigger a violent reaction from political reactionaries, look no further than the Benghazi attacks that were caused by a movie.

Comment: Re: fire them (Score 2) 110

by Obfuscant (#48628959) Attached to: Hackers Compromise ICANN, Access Zone File Data System

"Return-Path" is an SMTP header

SMTP doesn't have headers. SMTP is a protocol for message transport.

thus changing the "From:" envelope address.

There is likewise no "From:" envelope address. There is an envelope-sender (the argument to the SMTP "MAIL FROM" command) which is often inserted into a "Return-Path" header in the message, and is used in the mailbox separator "From" line in mbox email storage.

... still can't stop phishers from forging the "From:" header, which is just part of the body of the e-mail.

The "From:" header is a header, not something in the body of the message. As a header, it is subject to rewriting by transport agents.

Unfortunately, the envelope address usually never gets to the MUA,

The MUA has access to all headers in an email, including "Return-Path". It is usually never shown to the user, but a good MUA will have an option to show raw email, including headers. Why? For just this reason.

If you use an MUA like Outlook that hides all the technical info, it's easy to be fooled.

Well, there you go. I did say a GOOD MUA ...

There are several issues at play here:

1. Employees at a company that manages a huge part of the control of the Internet can't detect phishing email by looking at the address replies will go to.

2. The email system at said company creates email replies based on information that is supposed to be used ONLY for the transport system to report delivery issues.

3. The offline verification process intended to stop such fraud worked, which makes this a non-story from the beginning.

Comment: Re:No (Score 1) 1051

by Obfuscant (#48583113) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

Who's responsible if your child has a bad reaction to the vaccine and dies or is permanently disabled?

And who is responsible when people who have reasons you approve of for not getting vaccinated kill or cripple other people? (Claiming that children who aren't vaccinated are doing either one is simply ridiculous, but that's what you get from AC oftentimes.) That child who is allergic to the vaccine has just as much chance of spreading the diseases as one who isn't vaccinated for other reasons. And one who has a compromised immune system and can't be vaccinated is more likely to get that disease and spread it. Should those children be removed from the general population to protect the rest of us? Aren't they killing or crippling others?

And then what happens when the government decides that other things are required? E.g., lot of people are highly allergic to peanuts, so shouldn't peanuts be outright banned to protect them? If you have a Reeses PB Cup in your pocket, you are killing or crippling other people, you know...

The issue is not as black and white as it is being made out to be by some people. It is an indirect risk (like second hand smoke), and the risk is a problem only because a lot of people are exercising the freedom.

Comment: Re:The dissent (Score 1) 105

by Obfuscant (#48575875) Attached to: Canadian Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Warrantless Cellphone Searches

Why do they need a warrant to search your car if you're driving around in it?

Because it would be hard to argue that the area under your spare tire in the trunk is in your "immediate control" and thus subject to search based on your arrest. And even for areas that might be argued are under your immediate control, waiting to search until they have a warrant means there would be no "but you didn't have a warrant" defense at trial.

You might as well face it, if they arrest you in your car and impound it, they'll get the warrants they ask for.

Why do they need a warrant to search your house if you are there?

Fourth Amendment? Other than 1) what is in plain sight, or 2) within reach and might hide a weapon.

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!

Working...