Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Fox News? (Score 1) 682

by chiefcrash (#47271919) Attached to: IRS Recycled Lerner Hard Drive

So, unless there is some compelling reason to think that the drive was corrupted purposefully, or the recovery was disingenuous, then all you have here is SOP for any IT department (fix what's broke).

Hmm, all the IT departments I've worked for always had an SOP to fix what's broke, then store the broken hard drive rather than toss it. Sometimes we end up having to send the drives off to a clean-lab recovery outfit to grab important stuff.

Is it necessarily a conspiracy that the IRS IT Department tossed a drive? No. Is it something that at the very list indicates a need for a policy change? Possibly.

Comment: Secure against Cylons (Score 2) 142

You'll see things here that look odd, even antiquated to modern eyes, like phones with cords, awkward manual valves, computers that, well, barely deserve the name. It was all designed to operate against an enemy who could infiltrate and disrupt even the most basic computer systems. Galactica is a reminder of a time when we were so frightened by our enemies that we literally looked backward for protection...

Comment: Re: Fishy (Score 1) 566

by chiefcrash (#47120095) Attached to: TrueCrypt Website Says To Switch To BitLocker
> ... the amount of reputation harm that Microsoft would endure would literally be crippling.

I'm not so sure. After all, Microsoft seems to have survived despite virtually each of its cryptographic solutions having serious vulnerabilities, often breakable in a trivial manner. Kerberos, encryption of Microsoft Office documents, PPTP VPN, NTLM authentication protocol, SysKey, EFS encryption in Windows 2000, RNG implementations in Windows 2000/XP/Vista, and so on...

Comment: Re:Most gun ban advocates aren't rational about it (Score 1) 584

I'd like to point out that there are a LOT of unhinged gun control proponents out there as well. Like the guy who suggested dragging Republicans behind a truck until they "see the light on gun control". Or the guy who explicitly threatened to kill recall activists taking signatures in Colorado. It may be less publicized, but it's there:

They're armed too. And they have funny ideas about what a right means. And they are also paranoid! Oh and they're pandered to by a major political party.

I won't lump all gun control proponents in with the likes of them. But rest assured, both sides of this fight have unhinged crazies. And they're both just as dangerous...

Comment: Re:Gun nuts (Score 1) 1374

by chiefcrash (#46895975) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention
The purpose of a handgun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds is simple: it allows you to fire more rounds before having to reload. Some would try to say this is more dangerous somehow, but after watching a man fire 12 shots from a 6-shot revolver in about 3 seconds, I have to wonder why...

A military sniper rifle is simply a hunting rifle, just built with better quality control and a camouflage paint job. Seriously: the most popular hunting rifle and the most popular military sniper rifle are both Remington Model 700's...

The purpose of "any military weapon" is impossible to say, seeing as there is such a wide variety. Or are you saying a bayonet and a landmine fulfill the same purpose?

Same with the bombs: flash-bangs and nukes are both technically bombs, with completely different purposes.

"assault grips" is a new one for me, but I guess you're talking about pistol grips and secondary vertical grips. The purpose is simple: to allow an ergonomic hold of the weapon, providing better aiming and control. Same as non-"assault" grips...

Comment: Re:Gun nuts (Score 1) 1374

by chiefcrash (#46895925) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention
I'm not being purposefully obtuse, I'm trying to illustrate that the only true purpose of a firearm rests with the intent of the user.

The 1911 was designed as a military sidearm. Nowadays, it's rarely used by the military (except some special forces units), but it's the most popular "race gun" (competitive rapid-fire target shooting) at the ranges these days.
The SKS rifle, with it's built-in bayonet, was obviously built with the intention of being a battle rifle. But for the last few decades, it's seen more use as a poor man's deer and hog gun.
The trusty old shotgun was originally meant as a hunting gun, until some WWI soldiers figured out they worked well in trench warfare
Military sniper rifles are literally just hunting rifles, just with tighter quality controls and a camouflage paint job.

You also hold fundamentally conflicting views. You seem to think that a "self defense" gun is reasonable, but a gun designed to "hurt people" isn't. Isn't the whole "hurt people" thing sort of necessary for the "self defense" part?

If some guns and gun equipment are bad because they were supposedly designed to "kill humans", then why do we issue said equipment to law enforcement officers? It's not the police's job to run around killing people, right?

Comment: Re:Gun nuts (Score 1) 1374

by chiefcrash (#46893207) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention
In a strictly technical sense, the purpose of a gun is to launch a projectile. That's it. Choice of project is left to the intent of the user, as is the target and the intended use of the gun.

An olympic target pistol is just as lethal as a "saturday night special". A simple change of ammunition turns a deadly shotgun into a less-than-lethal shotgun.

Nobody has yet to explain how a $0.50 pistol grip magically makes a gun more dangerous. They've offered lame hollywood-inspired suggestions, but nothing that pans out. Perhaps you know something I don't? How does a thumbhole stock make a rifle better at harming people?

I've never been canoeing before, but I imagine there must be just a few simple heuristics you have to remember... Yes, don't fall out, and don't hit rocks.