Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment To those who think banning guns are the answer (Score 2, Insightful) 448

In your mind, guns ARE the problem. Removing them from society, even though 99% of owners have never done anything wrong, is your magic fix for the problem.

The rest of us try to make you all see reason in that guns, like anything else humans have used to kill each other over our entire existence, are nothing more than tools. How they're used is solely up to the wielder of said tool. However, you seem to ignore this fact every single time some bat-shit-crazy individual goes out and shoots up a bus full of Nuns, or a schoolyard, a workplace, or whatever. It's the GUNS fault. Each and every time.

Yet ( and this is where your hypocrisy really shines ) anytime the shooting starts, what is the very first thing you do ?

You dial 911.

Which you know will do what ?

IT BRINGS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE WITH GUNS TO THE SCENE. The relevant part of that sentence being " WITH GUNS ".
Don't even go down the path of " Well they're properly trained to use them " because we're not talking about the wielder are we ? We're talking about the tool. Remember, to you all, it's the gun. Not the person behind it.

So to all of you who seem to think guns are the problem and not the people wielding them, how do you justify calling the police for help ? Knowing they're going to be bringing lots of guns with them. Remember, to you all, it's not the people, it's without a doubt the GUN that's the problem which is why you want them all banned.

So, I have to ask. Which is it ?

Are guns really the problem or do you think it might just be guns in the hands of the wrong type of person that might be our issue here ? Because if you think it's ok to call the police ( who will be bringing lots of guns with them ) then you can't possibly deny that, in the hands of the right people, guns can actually save lives.

Afterthought: This will probably nuke my karma into oblivion but I don't really care. The folks who think banning something like a firearm will magically make everyone get along and the killings will stop just makes absolutely no sense to me. Mankind has been killing each other en masse since the dawn of time for various reasons using various tools. I don't see us stopping that behavior anytime soon unless we nuke each other into sub-atomic particles. The bright side of nuking everything would be the majority of your gun violence would stop :D

Comment Re: Gun-free zone? (Score 1) 1163

"So what you're saying is, there's basically zero chance of you ever being able to use your gun in the defense of anyone/anything. So why bother?"

Because 99% of violent interactions aren't mass shooting style scenarios ? The lone idiot or duo that decides they want my wallet or high dollar camera gear will find out what a clear line of sight shot looks like pretty quickly.

Pro tip: If you're out in public with a $15k camera / lens combo, you had best follow some rules.

1) Situational awareness at all times
2) Be armed
3) Be polite, but plan for the what-ifs if an encounter goes stupid

Comment Re: Gun-free zone? (Score 2) 1163

"Japan, Europe, both gun free zones, both with far less deaths.

Is it that difficult to get that guns kill??? Really??"

Mexico has VERY strict rules / laws about who can own a firearm and what type.

It doesn't seem to deter much of the homicides by firearm there now does it ?

Not to point out the obvious, but guns are no more responsible for death than computers are for kiddie porn.

99.9% of folks use computers with no problems, yet you would be ok with banning them because of what the .1% do with them ?

Replace " guns " with anything else and apply your ban logic to it. Alcohol, computers, cars, knowledge, etc. Does it work ?

Have you figured out yet that the tool is neutral ? It's the meatbag behind the device that's the issue. Why that is so difficult for you to understand is beyond my ability to explain.

Tell you what, throw your computer / phone away and never use them again. Not for anything YOU might do with it, rather what teh evil haxxors or kiddie porn collectors do with them. Since it's impossible to tell if you'll use it within the bounds of the law, or someday take a liking to underage porn, we should ban your use of it, regardless of how inconvenient it may be, just to satisfy your line of thinking. :|

Comment Re: Gun Free Zone (Score 2) 1163


Because all of the law abiding folks aren't carrying a weapon. See definition of " gun-free " zone.

It's unlikely you've ever seen a criminal intent on shooting everything up walk up to the front door, note the gun-free zone sign, and walk away muttering about how one can be a criminal these days with all the damn laws . . . .

Comment Re: Gun-free zone? (Score 2) 1163

I gotta take a moment to point this out.

The only places where " gun-free " zones work are those places where people with guns are onsite to enforce it. ( Eg: Your courtroom example )

Thus, the declaration of something being " gun-free " is pretty much meaningless unless there is someone there with a gun to enforce it.

Ironic no ?

Comment Metrics are rarely accurate (Score 4, Insightful) 165

Case in point.

I can spend the time to manually type in a few hundred lines of configuration data for a Router / Switch for every device I manage.


I can spend the time to build an app or program that will effectively build the same configuration for me, guaranteed error free. I need
only change the unique data for the site which can be done prior to the program launching.

So, if my employer is tracking how much I type or how many windows I click on in a day*, which of the two above scenarios is the more
efficient methods of getting a job done ? Because I didn't sit for three days straight and manually configure these systems, then I'm not
as productive ?

Heh. I'll say again, metrics are rarely accurate enough to base decisions on by themselves.

*Which is really easy to fudge with a simple script or program.

Comment A standard would be nice (Score 1) 148

Some sort of minimum security standard across the damn board would be greatly appreciated.

Set minimum password strength, length, type requirements. Set standards for hashing and storing login credentials, etc. You adhere to the standard and become certified to do business out on the web. No certification, no web business for you. Though, we sorely need the same standards applied to corporate networks that carry customer information as well. ( Eg: Home Depot, Target, etc )

Every site has different requirements. Password length, characters used, characters that cannot be used, password reuse, etc. etc. Password change day absolutely SUCKS because the password I choose to use for site X may or may not work for site Y. Like most of you, I have to keep a list of all the sites that are on the password rotation schedule because there are so damn many.


Passwords and encryption keys can be pretty strong but upon reaching a certain strength, will no longer be the focus of an attack. Keyloggers and the like pretty much negate the strongest encryption key or passwords you can come up with ( if using single factor authentication ) so I'm not sure what the charade by the government is about decrying strong encryption when all they have to do ( and they know it ) is exploit a bug or deploy malware into the software that drives your keyboard.

Encryption by default on the latest $smartphone is nice, but when the NSA's greatest buddy is responsible for updating your software ( say . . . AT&T ) then it's a pretty good chance your device is nowhere near as secure as you might like to think it is.

Comment Re: I always assumed they were (Score 1) 220

Even with a hard case and real lock, they're vulnerable. I had a firearm going through with dual locks and the lovely TSA sticker on it that said " firearm inside ".

Both locks were present when TSA put it on the conveyer belt, only one came out the other side. My guess is some idiot was in the process of cutting them off when they noticed the TSA sticker :|

No way it broke off on its own without damaging the case.

Comment To quote the write up (Score 1) 220

" without any signs of lockpicking "

When done correctly, there are no " signs of lockpicking " unless you start analysing bits of trace metal left behind.

Besides, it doesn't matter if a pick is used or a compromised master key, locks are for honest folks. Don't put any trust in them to protect your valuables.

Comment Updates are not always a good thing (Score 1) 141

For example, Adobe Premiere 2015, which is part of Adobe Creaative Cloud, is pretty much broken as it exists today. If you want it functional, you have to roll back to the 2014 version.

Subscription services suck because they already have your money, so they're in no hurry to fix their broken product. They'll get around to it eventually. Maybe.

Otherwise, a stand alone edition suffering the same problem would be critical fix numero uno or they don't get to sell any.

Another company going the same route is Autodesk. Both Maya and Max are going subscription only starting next year. Max will run about $1500 / year. I have no idea what Maya will cost. Doesn't matter, I'm switching to Blender because I'm not going to pay a subscription to be a permanent beta tester.

It would be one thing if updates were Earth shattering and can't live without sort of things, but the reality is usually something far less impressive. Mostly bug fixes that should have been dealt with during beta. :|

Besides, no one updates to a new version of anything mid-project.

I guess they'll figure that out a few years from now when most of their user base has left and they go the way of Silicon Graphics.

I'm done with companies switching to subscription models based on the sole needs of increasing their monthly revenue.

Comment As an introvert (Score 1) 842

I would buy / lease an island. Move to it. Say my final goodbyes to humanity. Buy a rather large telescope.
Maybe open an endangered animal preserve on the island with me.
( Dino's optional )

Food / supplies can be air dropped periodically. Get a pilots license for when you have to venture back to civilization.

Retire. Enjoy life as it's meant to be instead of being a wage slave who spends their life doing nothing but sitting in a cubicle, working to pay off some debt.
Travel, see how the rest of the world really is vs what the media tries to portray. Keep a low profile, be humble.

Maybe start another Nobel prize sort of thing for stuff you consider important. Try to make a difference in the lives of those who aren't as fortunate. Disease research, fresh water projects, clean energy research, etc. There is an awful lot wrong with the world that funding can help with. I wish the folks who keep buying yachts, mega-mansions, and their seventh gold plated Ferrari would understand that concept. :|

I mean, seriously, how much money do you need to live an amazing life for the rest of your days ?

Figure that out, then become a name that folks will remember for making positive things in the world a reality instead of the usual ultra-rich and greedy we usually get.

Comment Re:wan port (Score 2) 123

"Why do you need to route more than two networks for a home router? This is consumer grade equipment, it should only route two ports no more no less. Some routers include built in switches so they switch more than two ports, but as you just said you're not expecting to be a switch."

Because it's risky ( and foolish ) to mix all of your networked devices under a single network.

For every device that is both wifi and cellular capable ( Eg: Your smartphones and even alarm systems ) you have introduced a potential backdoor into your home network. The cellular capable device can be used as a jump point for either a real time intrusion or automated via malware / virus / trojan.

Isolate your devices into multiple vlans / networks to minimize exposure and risk. Don't let devices in the same vlan talk to each other unless you really need that functionality. Absolutely do not let devices in one vlan talk to devices in another for the same reasons. If you require it, write explicit rules to allow for it. ( X can talk to the printer, Y to the NAS drive, etc )

Because I don't trust Microsoft, the Xbox sits on its own vlan.
Because the alarm system has a cellular connection as a backup, it also sits by itself in its own vlan.
The media center ( TV, BlueRay, etc ) all sit in their own vlan.
Wireless has it's own vlan.
Wired systems reside within their own vlan.

Access to the routers / switches are restricted to specific devices on the wired vlan only.
( Yes, you can try and spoof it. Yes, I verify it. )

Because I absolutely do not trust Google, I most certainly would never utilize one of their pieces of hardware as the front-end for my home network.
Google is in the information gathering business. Period. That is their entire reason for existing. There is no WAY, I would even consider using their
hardware. Ever. Even if it was given to me for free.

Comment Hardware requirements (Score 1) 253

While Gigabit speeds are nice I guess a few questions came to mind:

1) Will we be forced to utilize their hardware to support these speeds or can I use my own ? ( You KNOW they will charge monthly for hardware rental )
2) Is the service symmetrical or is it something ludicrous like 1000 down / 10 up ?
3) I have absolutely zero need for Gigabit Ethernet outside the home. Can I get 100 / 100 for a decent price ? I would be thrilled with that.
4) Can I get it by itself without having to bundle some silly cable package ( that I don't want or need ) with it ?
5) Is there a minimum contract involved ? Eg: Two years

If they're actually trying to get ahead of Google on this instead of just coming up with creative ways to charge more, then maybe I'll start looking at the hardware required to route / switch it.

"The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." -- Robert G. Ingersoll