Unless there is some *serious* (like, freeking flooding!) Torrential downpouring here in the plains states before the next summers dry spell, it *will* blow.
Trenching crews reporting dry soil 4 ft down (over a meter), that can't cling to the trenching blade at all due to its dryness should be important to you, if you like to at food, and live in the US.
This whole winter, in my area it has: lightly drizzled once. Rained once with 2in precip, snowed once with 1in precip.
After a protracted summer drought season that killed corn and soy crops.
If this continues, planting will *NOT* be successful, soil cover will not recover, and seasonal wind changes will blow the top soil, 1930s style.
So yeah. Tell me about how you are prepared with your air conditioners some more here people. For real.
Bone is a calcium phosphate complex bound with protein molecules, which form an extracellular matrix. Calcium is an alkaline earth metal. Phosphorus is a nonmetal, and oxygen is a gas. Calcium phosphate, all by itself, is a mineral which usualy only forms under unusual and arrid conditions.
The calcium phosphate complex that comprises bone cannot be classified as a mineral, because it is formed via a biological process. (Similar caveat for coal. Not a mineral.)/pedant
I admit that the handshake is insecure. I am not a crypto expert, and haven't worked in IT for some years (and am thus, in all reality, no longer even employable). My intent here was to float a prototype idea.
As for ease of interception, consider this scenario:
Syria.
Rebels create ad-hoc VPNs over transient wireless connections with collaborating proxies operated in foriegn countries.
Consider: tunneled communications through these connections are multiple layer redundantly encrypted, due to the encapsulated nature of VPN communications. (Eg, Alice and Bob correspond with each other using their secret keys, using the secured service provided by Rodger and Robert. Eve has access to the Rodger-Robert transfer network. She breaks their encryption easily by intercepting the weaksauce handshake. However, the weaksauce handshake between Alice and Bob may or may not have been completed over Rodger and Robert's tunnel. (Could just as easily have been Raul-Rufus, depending on how the ad-hoc network routes the traffic.)
Listening to Alice and Bob therefor presents a more difficult problem.
RSA public-Private pair encryption (which uses prime factoring) was suggested, because it makes it very hard for Eve to impersonate either Alice or Bob and do a man in the middle. (Eve lacks the private keys to properly sign the transactions, and those keys are never transmitted.)
That the NSA could effectively force the security on a single transaction, gets complicated by widespread adoption. "Omnipresent information awareness" requires constant, realtime access to data feeds. Volatile keypair generation with enforced random keys would greatly overwhelm this goal under an oppressive computational burden, even with known exploits.
I actually had a great idea a few weeks ago for a fairly trivial enhancement to open firmware based routers. (General category. Covers even the "not completely open" ones, like DDWRT)
Basically, the router attempts to negotiate a transparently encrypted communication stream with remote hosts, and does so silently so that user level applications get all the benefits of secure communications, without having to be rewritten.
The idea was for the router itself to "stall for time" a few hundred MS before actually sending the first live datagram to any unknown remote hosts, while it attempts a secret handshake. (Depending on the result of the handshake test, it won't stall again on subsequent transactions.)
First stage of the handshake has the router send an ICMP datagram to the remote host. The ICMP packet's "padding" contains a magic number, and some random data.
If the remote host replies with the same data in the padding, the remote host fails the handshake, and secure connections won't be further attempted. (Eg, normal PING reply.)
If the remote host is running the enhanced firmware, it checks incoming ICMP for the magic number, and when it finds it, generates a OTP to replace the random data in the padding, preceeded by the "understood" magic reply number.
When the initiating router gets this reply, it uses the OTP to distribute an on-the-fly generated 4096 bit RSA public key to the remote host, proceeded by a magic number.
The remote host replies with the "understood" magic number again, and distributes its own on-the-fly public key in the return packet.
After that, the router encrypts the data field portion of all packets destined for that host using its private key, and forms a memory entry containing the key pair and the host's address. All packets received by that host have the data field portion decrypted using the received remote host's public key, before being presented on the connected interface.
Because the keypairs would be volatile, random, and constantly changing/with expiration built in, it would greatly frustrate monitoring attempts. Eavesdroppers would have to listen to the initial handshake to get the needed keys. (Perhaps somebody better at crypto could come up wit a more secure handshake..)
The idea was that most home NAT routers have plenty of CPU and RAM in them, and could easily do this kind of thing totally transparently.
Imagine, for instance, double encrypted voip. (Encrypted at the application level, and encrypted at the transport level.)
Being random keys, generated on the fly, "rubber hose" approaches wouldn't be effective.
I am quite surprised something like this hasn't already found its way into OpenWRT.
The question here, is if this is due to stricter controls on weapons, or due to better social policies (and as such, a healthier society.)
Europe, germany especially, has very strict rules about media depictions of hate and violence for instance, that the USA does not have.
While unfounded, I would conjecture that prohibiting the depictions of gratuitous violence found in typical hollywood "action movies" would have a greater impact on american violent crime than imposing stricter laws on firearms would.
The idea is to activate memtest when they first knock and say "police, open up."
Once running, you get up and answer the door like alaw abiding citizen. (Never trust or talk to cops without a lawyer though.) Be pleasant, and superfiscially compliant. Stall for time while memtest does its first pass.
One pass on random data read/write should be more than adequate.
Its also important to extrapolate out the number of gun related homocides that can't be (grossly) lumped in with "self defense" (this is not an endorsement, btw) situations.
Eg, crook with crowbar breaks into house, homeowner shoots and kills him. The crook is a gun related homocide statistic.
If overall violent crime is high, and firearm ownership is high, barring a social taboo, the number of persons being shot will also be comparably high. (If for no other reason, violent criminals are being shot.)
If anything, the guns per homocide value having such a wide spread is fairly indicative that gun ownership/availability is not the primary controlling variable.
Not saying the USA and our criminal statistics are in any way "a good thing", just that gun ownership and availability is only a contributing factor to the larger problem, which is overall greater criminality.
Eg, "sensible people" + guns == only slight change in shootings.
Eg, the rate of vehicular related deaths among 3rd world, uncontacted jungle villages is amazingly low. It doesn't mean they are safer drivers, it means nobody drives, so nobody dies while driving.
It's like saying there is no disease, and no starvation on mars. Of course there isn't, nobody lives there. It doesn't mean mars is a utopian paradise.
Rather than looking myopically at "gun related deaths", you should look at overall "deaths by violent crime".
The percentage of those deaths via firearms is a function of availability. The rate of deaths overall by violent crimes is what you are really looking for.
But it doesn't sound as sensational when you say "sure, your chances of being killed in a violent crime are 3x higher, but your chances of being shot are nearly nonexistent!", instead of "almost nobody gets shot here!"
The question to ask is not "do less people get shot", the question to ask is "is there less overall violent crime?"
(This is especially important whe you consider that part of the ascribed deterrent effect [if it exists], is the implication that violent criminals will themselves be more likely to BE shot. As such, if said violent criminals *are* being shot, they will contribute to the "gun related deaths" statistic.)
By not storing the plaintext key in memory, but instead storing an encoded form. Eg, dynamically create a computation that produces the key, and storing that. (Easily defeated as well, but it's still a way to frustrate fishing attempts like this. Introduce some random and unnecessary feature to the computation as well, and structure it to look like some other decryption algo as cammoflauge. At this level, it would require human operators manually inspecting the hibernation file to gleen how the key is being stored.)
Computing the key that way and then relying on cache hits with a check for cache miss would would help keep the key out of dumpable memory in a cleartext form.
then again, hibernation is epic fail from a security POV anyway. This is just another reason to disable hibernation if security is the objective.
(Personally, I would use a knoppix live DVD with a dual ISOLINUX entry to also load memtest. Feds bang on the door, restart -now that bitch, then pop into memtest. Let them freeze that memory and get something out after running the random write/read test on it!)
No, it is simple logic. Man used a semi-automatic weapon. (This means that the recoil of the shot is used to mechanically unchamber the spent round, and load a new round into the chamber, but it does not fire automatically. You have to pull the trigger to shoot again. This is compared to say, a bolt action rifle with manual unchambering using the action. It does not mean "spray of bullets holding the trigger down.", that is "full auto", which you can't buy, and which this man did not have.)
I have been made aware that the shooter used a.223 rifle, which is a very low end military rifle/hunting rifle, with a larger than normal magazine. While definately more powerful than a.22, it still isn't as powerful as a normal issue assault rifle. (You know, of course, that bolt action rifles often shoot idential or even more powerful rounds right?)
Statistically, gun related homocides are 3 times LESS likely to be what kills you than a vehicular accident. Driving you kid to school is 3x more likely to kill them than an armed shooter, despite the prevelence of guns in the US.
(11,000 deaths anually comes out to a rough statistic of 30 dead each day in the USA. 2009 statistic for vehicular deaths was 98 dead each day. More than 3x as many.)
Where is the outcry to take away driver's licenses, and use public mass transit? If the goal is to save lives, then better mass transit would do much more good than even perfect gun enforcement would.
Much like safe motorists don't pose a very significant threat (ask the insurance industry. They make their money betting you WON'T total yours or somebody else's vehicle.), safe gun owners don't pose a significant threat to public safety, regardless of the calibre of weaponry they own. Asserting that mere availability is what causes the deaths is a nonsequitor. (I have 'access' to what many here would consider a dangerous arsenal that should be destroyed, including high power rifles. Yet, I personally own none of them. I could ask to borrow one at any time, and likely get it from the people I know. I have absolutely no intention nor impulse to kill anyone. Thus, the availability of the weapon is at best tangental to the issue at hand: people who want to kill other people. They are already willing to violate basic human principles and the law by engaging in homocide. Laws intended to restrict the availability of firearms would not pose a significant barrier to acquisition. Note how drug dealers and crime lords somehow manage to get fully automatic weapons, despite that gun stores simply *will not sell you one.* the logical conclusion is that they get the guns illegally already. Thus, more gun control will not have a very strong, if even measurable effect.)
Tell me, mr "guncontrol won't work is ra ra rah idiocy", what is your expected effect by making guns you can't buy already somehow even more impossible to buy?
You are forgetting that the US is supposed to be a government of LAW, and that banning guns is illegal.
By all means, call a constitutional convention, and neuter the second amendment.
But until you do, gun control is illegal. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Allowing the government to do illegal things out of convenience is not a wise decision. Ever.
The issue with mental health can be (partially) addressed almost free as well.
1) legislation prohibiting derogatory or defamitory depictions of mental illness in media and news.
2) legislation prohibiting pharmecutical companies from charging differential prices for the same medication abroad vs domestically, when adjusted for inflation and currency difference. (They can still price competatively; the prices aren't fixed. They just can't charge 1000% markup in the US, like they do now.)
3) legislate a minimum mandatory doctor to citizen ratio for the nation, and fine the fuck out of the AMA for noncompliance.
As an added bonus, you will see the costs of other healthcare come down as well.
It is important to note, that there is no such thing as a harmless gun.
A.22, while super wimpy from a military standpoint (where it is only usefull as an anticivilian, or harassment weapon) will kill you just as dead as a.306 high power sniper rifle will. Sadly, QED for the victims of this tradgedy.
The point here, is that the USA *already* has restrictions on purchasing high power firearms. You can't just walk into a gunstore and buy a.306; there is a criminal background check and a 3 day waiting period between purchase and take-home.
Yet *moar!* restrictions on buying high power arms would not have made a difference in this tradgedy, because the weapons used were not high power arms.
Logical lampoon:
Middle eastern man hurls a rock, kills a "condemned" woman. Major furor erupts. A ban on owning firearms is implemented to prevent further deaths. Woman was killed with a rock, not a gun. Outlawing guns won't stop additional stonings. The ban does nothing.
Likwise, here we have strong, almost draconian restrictions on high power munitions (and yes, there are certain circmstances where a high power round is required outside of law enforcement and military applications. Like shooting a bear.), yet somehow *additional* restrictions on high power munitions are somehow, through some magical and inscrutible mechanism, prevent tragic shootings with small arms.
I think the best combination is as follows:
Require a current safety certification for purchase of all firearms. Keep the 3 day restriction on high power weapons. Put a 1 day restriction on small arms. Forbid all sales to minors and felons. (Already in place.) Require a clean psych report for high power weapons. Limit ammunitions purchases to lots of 20 per day for shotgun shells, and 10 for small arms. Ammo for high power requires 3 day hold.
For dealing with psychological problems in american culture, dealing with it similarly to how we deal with say, tobacco seems a good place to start; EG, we have prohibitions against depicting people "being cool!" In movies with cigarrettes.
In this case, to help remove the ingrained "mentally ill== batshit crazy, who doesn't know anything and is probably an idiot with nothing to contribute" problem, we introduce rules on public entertainment venues prohibiting such depictions in media, replaced with depictions showing people with mental illness as actual people who need actual help, and who do get better with treatment. Fund studies into causes of depression in the united states, and seek legislative solutions to recurring occupational causes. Enact local legislation prohibiting pharmecutical companies from gouging the US market unfairly compared with foriegn markets to help treatments be more affordable. (Bonus, cost of healthcare will go down in general.) Legislate a minimum doctor:general public ratio, and sanction the AMA for noncompliance if they fail to deliver within 12 years.
If problems still persist, add harrassment and unfair exclusions from work or memberships for people with treated mental conditions to the list of actionable offenses against employers and general citizens (hatecrime laws, et al.)
The idea is that getting mental help should be inexpensive, and non stigmatory. Just like discovering a strange lump means you should see a doctor right away, and nobody faults you for doing so, people should see a mental health specialist right away if they feel depressed, suicidal, or worthless/helpless, and nobody should fault them for it. Just like we wouldn't tolerate another person berating a cancer victim for developing cancer, (calling them weak, implying that they are faking it, that they are worthless/useless for having it, etc) we must not tolerate that shit from people, in regard to victims of mental illness. Instead, just like cancer, people should be supportive and caring for people who develop mental illnesses, and be there for them as they struggle to overcome it.
A better comparison would have been automobile related deaths, in retrospect.
At 11,000 deaths per year for firearms, that comes to an average of approx 30 deaths per day.
Wikipedia gives the statistic of 98 deaths per day for automotive related fatalities. (2009)
So, you are 300% more likely to die from another driver, than from the discharge of a firearm.
Yet, somehow, I don't see nearly the level of impetus to force american commuters to use public transit, even though the net benefit of doing so is potentially 3 TIMES greater than the benefit of perfect gun control.
Essentially, the taxi you flag to get you frm A to B in your big city is 3 times more likely to kill you than an armed beligerant.
This is a complicated issue, and one I am not the best one to answer.
That said, here is my observation, which may or may not be wrong in the general sense.
The USA has an intrinsic constitutional right for the citizenry to own, and use weapons (arms. Type is not specified.) For the purposes of creating and maintaining "an organized standing millitia." It further states that this right shall not be infringed. (Eg, *all* laws trying to limit what arms the common citizen my own or carry are unconstitutional in the general sense as the article is written.) Because it is necessary to disarm the population to completely subjugate it under centralized authority, which is directly contradictory to the stated purpose of the amendment in question, and with the added context for the amendment provided by the federalist papers, coupled with the innate paranoia of the tinfoil hat "freedom fighter" crowd, it is seen as more than just a right to own weaponry; it is a civic responsibility to own such weaponry, to make the government less willing to enact brutal crushing force to get its way, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia style. (At least in theory.)
The presence of firearms among the populace is not realy that large of a problem. People who are ignorant of the proper care and employment of those armaments, and those that are mentally ill, and for whatever reason, seek to use those implements in ways for which the 2nd amendment was *NOT* intended, (like shooting kindergartners) are the real problem.
Requiring proper training and certification and possibly a psych screening before purchase or reciept of a weapon is sensible. Blanket bans on "scary looking guns", because "Like, they are for shooting people, man, PEOPLE!" Is NOT sensible, in light of what the supreme law of the land says. (The statute exists literally FOR shooting PEOPLE, under very specific conditions.)
Attempts to force the issue by well meaning, but clearly ignorant or misguided people are naturally met with amazing amounts of resistance from those that hold the right to be a civic responsibility, and requisite to retain american liberties in the face of tyrrany by the majority. (Not to say that the people who hold such a view are not also misguided, ignorant, or both, while being equally well intentioned, but in a different way.)
Personally, I believe that if the US federal government wants to restrict arms, and remain being seen as a legitimately elected government *OF LAW*, it needs to follow the prescribed proceedure to amend the constituton, and get 2/3 majority vote from among the state governments for such a resolution.
Anything less flaunts a double standard, and serves only to demonstrate the validity of the reason de'tre of the tinfoil hatters. (That the government is willing to break its ow laws to accomplish something it wants, but feels it could never get the support it needs to legitimately enact, in contravention of the public's trust.)
If the government *DID* call a constitutional convention for a new amendment to strike or amend the 2nd, and it passed, I would have no problems with legislation being penned and accepted that limits ownership and use of weaponry by general citizens.
As it stands though, the government is attempting a power grab that lacks legitimacy of law, and should not be tolerated.
Me? I don't own any guns. Don't have a need to. But if I did have a need of one, I could get one, as is my right. It would sit in a gun vault or display case as an ornament for 99% of its life, except as needed. (As the 2nd amendment intends.)
Hydrogen cyanate is deadly as a vapor in the PPM range.
An aerosol can sprayer is not hard to fabricate, and can be thrown in through a window. Like I said, the method of application is best left to the madman. I simply listed a nice easy way to go about it.
In this case, our killer was the son of an employee of said school. Getting into the school to plant a bomb is as simple as swiping her keys for the weekend, and getting a duplicate made.
Schools are hardly fort knox you know. (And titration is NOT hard to do at all. You can do it with an over the counter eyedropper. You can get them in the pen and ink section of an art supply store for under 3$, with tax. Special equipment is NOT needed to manufacture bombs. Drugs, yes. Bombs? No.)
That is lower than the 100/day stat being batted around.
Or, do you mean that 30,000 deaths occur each day? In which case, the odds of being shot are *still* 4 places to the right of the decimal point. (.00012:1 ratio)
See that little pipsqueek on the far right? That's what comes out of the "assault rifle" the killer from this story used. It is literally the size of 3 BBs glued together, with a few grams of powder behind it. Cartridge and all, it weighs less then 20 grams.
Compare that with the REAL assault rifle rounds on the far left, and you have a better idea of why this is a farce.
Slashdot Mirror
.... river water is *routinely* diverted for municipal watershed use, and for agricultural irrigation supplies.
Dry rivers == dehydrated cities and dead crops.
Unless there is some *serious* (like, freeking flooding!) Torrential downpouring here in the plains states before the next summers dry spell, it *will* blow.
Trenching crews reporting dry soil 4 ft down (over a meter), that can't cling to the trenching blade at all due to its dryness should be important to you, if you like to at food, and live in the US.
This whole winter, in my area it has: lightly drizzled once. Rained once with 2in precip, snowed once with 1in precip.
After a protracted summer drought season that killed corn and soy crops.
If this continues, planting will *NOT* be successful, soil cover will not recover, and seasonal wind changes will blow the top soil, 1930s style.
So yeah. Tell me about how you are prepared with your air conditioners some more here people. For real.
(Looks for suitable cover from retun fire...)
"Well, It *is* dec. 21 today..."
[Hits the dirt.]
Bone is a calcium phosphate complex bound with protein molecules, which form an extracellular matrix. Calcium is an alkaline earth metal. Phosphorus is a nonmetal, and oxygen is a gas. Calcium phosphate, all by itself, is a mineral which usualy only forms under unusual and arrid conditions.
The calcium phosphate complex that comprises bone cannot be classified as a mineral, because it is formed via a biological process. (Similar caveat for coal. Not a mineral.) /pedant
It says:
"User Horndog is not a member of the super users group", and that "my access violation will be reported"!
I think I hear sirens....
What purpose would my personal opinion on the matter serve?
Either the numbers add up, or they don't.
An experimental prohibition period is required to test the hypothesis. Personal opinion on the matter is not relavent.
I admit that the handshake is insecure. I am not a crypto expert, and haven't worked in IT for some years (and am thus, in all reality, no longer even employable). My intent here was to float a prototype idea.
As for ease of interception, consider this scenario:
Syria.
Rebels create ad-hoc VPNs over transient wireless connections with collaborating proxies operated in foriegn countries.
Consider: tunneled communications through these connections are multiple layer redundantly encrypted, due to the encapsulated nature of VPN communications. (Eg, Alice and Bob correspond with each other using their secret keys, using the secured service provided by Rodger and Robert. Eve has access to the Rodger-Robert transfer network. She breaks their encryption easily by intercepting the weaksauce handshake. However, the weaksauce handshake between Alice and Bob may or may not have been completed over Rodger and Robert's tunnel. (Could just as easily have been Raul-Rufus, depending on how the ad-hoc network routes the traffic.)
Listening to Alice and Bob therefor presents a more difficult problem.
RSA public-Private pair encryption (which uses prime factoring) was suggested, because it makes it very hard for Eve to impersonate either Alice or Bob and do a man in the middle. (Eve lacks the private keys to properly sign the transactions, and those keys are never transmitted.)
That the NSA could effectively force the security on a single transaction, gets complicated by widespread adoption. "Omnipresent information awareness" requires constant, realtime access to data feeds. Volatile keypair generation with enforced random keys would greatly overwhelm this goal under an oppressive computational burden, even with known exploits.
I actually had a great idea a few weeks ago for a fairly trivial enhancement to open firmware based routers. (General category. Covers even the "not completely open" ones, like DDWRT)
Basically, the router attempts to negotiate a transparently encrypted communication stream with remote hosts, and does so silently so that user level applications get all the benefits of secure communications, without having to be rewritten.
The idea was for the router itself to "stall for time" a few hundred MS before actually sending the first live datagram to any unknown remote hosts, while it attempts a secret handshake. (Depending on the result of the handshake test, it won't stall again on subsequent transactions.)
First stage of the handshake has the router send an ICMP datagram to the remote host. The ICMP packet's "padding" contains a magic number, and some random data.
If the remote host replies with the same data in the padding, the remote host fails the handshake, and secure connections won't be further attempted. (Eg, normal PING reply.)
If the remote host is running the enhanced firmware, it checks incoming ICMP for the magic number, and when it finds it, generates a OTP to replace the random data in the padding, preceeded by the "understood" magic reply number.
When the initiating router gets this reply, it uses the OTP to distribute an on-the-fly generated 4096 bit RSA public key to the remote host, proceeded by a magic number.
The remote host replies with the "understood" magic number again, and distributes its own on-the-fly public key in the return packet.
After that, the router encrypts the data field portion of all packets destined for that host using its private key, and forms a memory entry containing the key pair and the host's address. All packets received by that host have the data field portion decrypted using the received remote host's public key, before being presented on the connected interface.
Because the keypairs would be volatile, random, and constantly changing/with expiration built in, it would greatly frustrate monitoring attempts. Eavesdroppers would have to listen to the initial handshake to get the needed keys. (Perhaps somebody better at crypto could come up wit a more secure handshake..)
The idea was that most home NAT routers have plenty of CPU and RAM in them, and could easily do this kind of thing totally transparently.
Imagine, for instance, double encrypted voip. (Encrypted at the application level, and encrypted at the transport level.)
Being random keys, generated on the fly, "rubber hose" approaches wouldn't be effective.
I am quite surprised something like this hasn't already found its way into OpenWRT.
The question here, is if this is due to stricter controls on weapons, or due to better social policies (and as such, a healthier society.)
Europe, germany especially, has very strict rules about media depictions of hate and violence for instance, that the USA does not have.
While unfounded, I would conjecture that prohibiting the depictions of gratuitous violence found in typical hollywood "action movies" would have a greater impact on american violent crime than imposing stricter laws on firearms would.
(Bobo doll experiment FTW.)
The idea is to activate memtest when they first knock and say "police, open up."
Once running, you get up and answer the door like alaw abiding citizen. (Never trust or talk to cops without a lawyer though.) Be pleasant, and superfiscially compliant. Stall for time while memtest does its first pass.
One pass on random data read/write should be more than adequate.
Its also important to extrapolate out the number of gun related homocides that can't be (grossly) lumped in with "self defense" (this is not an endorsement, btw) situations.
Eg, crook with crowbar breaks into house, homeowner shoots and kills him. The crook is a gun related homocide statistic.
If overall violent crime is high, and firearm ownership is high, barring a social taboo, the number of persons being shot will also be comparably high. (If for no other reason, violent criminals are being shot.)
If anything, the guns per homocide value having such a wide spread is fairly indicative that gun ownership/availability is not the primary controlling variable.
Not saying the USA and our criminal statistics are in any way "a good thing", just that gun ownership and availability is only a contributing factor to the larger problem, which is overall greater criminality.
Eg, "sensible people" + guns == only slight change in shootings.
"Violent criminally minded people" (like americans) + guns == exagerated change in shootings.
Curbing violent behaviors would be the primary variable to influence for the greatest reduction in homocides, including gun related.
I would say that is basic statistics.
Eg, the rate of vehicular related deaths among 3rd world, uncontacted jungle villages is amazingly low. It doesn't mean they are safer drivers, it means nobody drives, so nobody dies while driving.
It's like saying there is no disease, and no starvation on mars. Of course there isn't, nobody lives there. It doesn't mean mars is a utopian paradise.
Rather than looking myopically at "gun related deaths", you should look at overall "deaths by violent crime".
The percentage of those deaths via firearms is a function of availability. The rate of deaths overall by violent crimes is what you are really looking for.
But it doesn't sound as sensational when you say "sure, your chances of being killed in a violent crime are 3x higher, but your chances of being shot are nearly nonexistent!", instead of "almost nobody gets shot here!"
The question to ask is not "do less people get shot", the question to ask is "is there less overall violent crime?"
(This is especially important whe you consider that part of the ascribed deterrent effect [if it exists], is the implication that violent criminals will themselves be more likely to BE shot. As such, if said violent criminals *are* being shot, they will contribute to the "gun related deaths" statistic.)
By not storing the plaintext key in memory, but instead storing an encoded form. Eg, dynamically create a computation that produces the key, and storing that. (Easily defeated as well, but it's still a way to frustrate fishing attempts like this. Introduce some random and unnecessary feature to the computation as well, and structure it to look like some other decryption algo as cammoflauge. At this level, it would require human operators manually inspecting the hibernation file to gleen how the key is being stored.)
Computing the key that way and then relying on cache hits with a check for cache miss would would help keep the key out of dumpable memory in a cleartext form.
Make sense.
then again, hibernation is epic fail from a security POV anyway. This is just another reason to disable hibernation if security is the objective.
(Personally, I would use a knoppix live DVD with a dual ISOLINUX entry to also load memtest. Feds bang on the door, restart -now that bitch, then pop into memtest. Let them freeze that memory and get something out after running the random write/read test on it!)
Of course not! Nothing newer than basic stoichiometric chemistry and mechanical engineering at good old M.U.!
But, it's still the only place you can get a properly decorated degree in otherworldly geometry, paleohistoric literature, or in the eldritch arts.
If you want that new-fangled information technology, you'll have to go to MIT or Stanford! (As if anyone would!)
(Lol! Really, I just forgot to preview before posting.)
Cthulu?
Don't be silly! Clearly you didn't actually graduate from Miskatonic U.
All the 300 level students know that Yog Sothoth holds all the keys!
Honestly.....
No, it is simple logic. Man used a semi-automatic weapon. (This means that the recoil of the shot is used to mechanically unchamber the spent round, and load a new round into the chamber, but it does not fire automatically. You have to pull the trigger to shoot again. This is compared to say, a bolt action rifle with manual unchambering using the action. It does not mean "spray of bullets holding the trigger down.", that is "full auto", which you can't buy, and which this man did not have.)
I have been made aware that the shooter used a .223 rifle, which is a very low end military rifle/hunting rifle, with a larger than normal magazine. While definately more powerful than a .22, it still isn't as powerful as a normal issue assault rifle. (You know, of course, that bolt action rifles often shoot idential or even more powerful rounds right?)
Statistically, gun related homocides are 3 times LESS likely to be what kills you than a vehicular accident. Driving you kid to school is 3x more likely to kill them than an armed shooter, despite the prevelence of guns in the US.
(11,000 deaths anually comes out to a rough statistic of 30 dead each day in the USA. 2009 statistic for vehicular deaths was 98 dead each day. More than 3x as many.)
Where is the outcry to take away driver's licenses, and use public mass transit? If the goal is to save lives, then better mass transit would do much more good than even perfect gun enforcement would.
Much like safe motorists don't pose a very significant threat (ask the insurance industry. They make their money betting you WON'T total yours or somebody else's vehicle.), safe gun owners don't pose a significant threat to public safety, regardless of the calibre of weaponry they own. Asserting that mere availability is what causes the deaths is a nonsequitor. (I have 'access' to what many here would consider a dangerous arsenal that should be destroyed, including high power rifles. Yet, I personally own none of them. I could ask to borrow one at any time, and likely get it from the people I know. I have absolutely no intention nor impulse to kill anyone. Thus, the availability of the weapon is at best tangental to the issue at hand: people who want to kill other people. They are already willing to violate basic human principles and the law by engaging in homocide. Laws intended to restrict the availability of firearms would not pose a significant barrier to acquisition. Note how drug dealers and crime lords somehow manage to get fully automatic weapons, despite that gun stores simply *will not sell you one.* the logical conclusion is that they get the guns illegally already. Thus, more gun control will not have a very strong, if even measurable effect.)
Tell me, mr "guncontrol won't work is ra ra rah idiocy", what is your expected effect by making guns you can't buy already somehow even more impossible to buy?
You are forgetting that the US is supposed to be a government of LAW, and that banning guns is illegal.
By all means, call a constitutional convention, and neuter the second amendment.
But until you do, gun control is illegal. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Allowing the government to do illegal things out of convenience is not a wise decision. Ever.
The issue with mental health can be (partially) addressed almost free as well.
1) legislation prohibiting derogatory or defamitory depictions of mental illness in media and news.
2) legislation prohibiting pharmecutical companies from charging differential prices for the same medication abroad vs domestically, when adjusted for inflation and currency difference. (They can still price competatively; the prices aren't fixed. They just can't charge 1000% markup in the US, like they do now.)
3) legislate a minimum mandatory doctor to citizen ratio for the nation, and fine the fuck out of the AMA for noncompliance.
As an added bonus, you will see the costs of other healthcare come down as well.
It is important to note, that there is no such thing as a harmless gun.
A .22, while super wimpy from a military standpoint (where it is only usefull as an anticivilian, or harassment weapon) will kill you just as dead as a .306 high power sniper rifle will. Sadly, QED for the victims of this tradgedy.
The point here, is that the USA *already* has restrictions on purchasing high power firearms. You can't just walk into a gunstore and buy a .306; there is a criminal background check and a 3 day waiting period between purchase and take-home.
Yet *moar!* restrictions on buying high power arms would not have made a difference in this tradgedy, because the weapons used were not high power arms.
Logical lampoon:
Middle eastern man hurls a rock, kills a "condemned" woman. Major furor erupts. A ban on owning firearms is implemented to prevent further deaths. Woman was killed with a rock, not a gun. Outlawing guns won't stop additional stonings. The ban does nothing.
Likwise, here we have strong, almost draconian restrictions on high power munitions (and yes, there are certain circmstances where a high power round is required outside of law enforcement and military applications. Like shooting a bear.), yet somehow *additional* restrictions on high power munitions are somehow, through some magical and inscrutible mechanism, prevent tragic shootings with small arms.
I think the best combination is as follows:
Require a current safety certification for purchase of all firearms.
Keep the 3 day restriction on high power weapons.
Put a 1 day restriction on small arms.
Forbid all sales to minors and felons. (Already in place.)
Require a clean psych report for high power weapons.
Limit ammunitions purchases to lots of 20 per day for shotgun shells, and 10 for small arms. Ammo for high power requires 3 day hold.
For dealing with psychological problems in american culture, dealing with it similarly to how we deal with say, tobacco seems a good place to start; EG, we have prohibitions against depicting people "being cool!" In movies with cigarrettes.
In this case, to help remove the ingrained "mentally ill== batshit crazy, who doesn't know anything and is probably an idiot with nothing to contribute" problem, we introduce rules on public entertainment venues prohibiting such depictions in media, replaced with depictions showing people with mental illness as actual people who need actual help, and who do get better with treatment. Fund studies into causes of depression in the united states, and seek legislative solutions to recurring occupational causes. Enact local legislation prohibiting pharmecutical companies from gouging the US market unfairly compared with foriegn markets to help treatments be more affordable. (Bonus, cost of healthcare will go down in general.) Legislate a minimum doctor:general public ratio, and sanction the AMA for noncompliance if they fail to deliver within 12 years.
If problems still persist, add harrassment and unfair exclusions from work or memberships for people with treated mental conditions to the list of actionable offenses against employers and general citizens (hatecrime laws, et al.)
The idea is that getting mental help should be inexpensive, and non stigmatory. Just like discovering a strange lump means you should see a doctor right away, and nobody faults you for doing so, people should see a mental health specialist right away if they feel depressed, suicidal, or worthless/helpless, and nobody should fault them for it. Just like we wouldn't tolerate another person berating a cancer victim for developing cancer, (calling them weak, implying that they are faking it, that they are worthless/useless for having it, etc) we must not tolerate that shit from people, in regard to victims of mental illness. Instead, just like cancer, people should be supportive and caring for people who develop mental illnesses, and be there for them as they struggle to overcome it.
Noted, and accepted.
A better comparison would have been automobile related deaths, in retrospect.
At 11,000 deaths per year for firearms, that comes to an average of approx 30 deaths per day.
Wikipedia gives the statistic of 98 deaths per day for automotive related fatalities. (2009)
So, you are 300% more likely to die from another driver, than from the discharge of a firearm.
Yet, somehow, I don't see nearly the level of impetus to force american commuters to use public transit, even though the net benefit of doing so is potentially 3 TIMES greater than the benefit of perfect gun control.
Essentially, the taxi you flag to get you frm A to B in your big city is 3 times more likely to kill you than an armed beligerant.
This is a complicated issue, and one I am not the best one to answer.
That said, here is my observation, which may or may not be wrong in the general sense.
The USA has an intrinsic constitutional right for the citizenry to own, and use weapons (arms. Type is not specified.) For the purposes of creating and maintaining "an organized standing millitia." It further states that this right shall not be infringed. (Eg, *all* laws trying to limit what arms the common citizen my own or carry are unconstitutional in the general sense as the article is written.) Because it is necessary to disarm the population to completely subjugate it under centralized authority, which is directly contradictory to the stated purpose of the amendment in question, and with the added context for the amendment provided by the federalist papers, coupled with the innate paranoia of the tinfoil hat "freedom fighter" crowd, it is seen as more than just a right to own weaponry; it is a civic responsibility to own such weaponry, to make the government less willing to enact brutal crushing force to get its way, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia style. (At least in theory.)
The presence of firearms among the populace is not realy that large of a problem. People who are ignorant of the proper care and employment of those armaments, and those that are mentally ill, and for whatever reason, seek to use those implements in ways for which the 2nd amendment was *NOT* intended, (like shooting kindergartners) are the real problem.
Requiring proper training and certification and possibly a psych screening before purchase or reciept of a weapon is sensible. Blanket bans on "scary looking guns", because "Like, they are for shooting people, man, PEOPLE!" Is NOT sensible, in light of what the supreme law of the land says. (The statute exists literally FOR shooting PEOPLE, under very specific conditions.)
Attempts to force the issue by well meaning, but clearly ignorant or misguided people are naturally met with amazing amounts of resistance from those that hold the right to be a civic responsibility, and requisite to retain american liberties in the face of tyrrany by the majority. (Not to say that the people who hold such a view are not also misguided, ignorant, or both, while being equally well intentioned, but in a different way.)
Personally, I believe that if the US federal government wants to restrict arms, and remain being seen as a legitimately elected government *OF LAW*, it needs to follow the prescribed proceedure to amend the constituton, and get 2/3 majority vote from among the state governments for such a resolution.
Anything less flaunts a double standard, and serves only to demonstrate the validity of the reason de'tre of the tinfoil hatters. (That the government is willing to break its ow laws to accomplish something it wants, but feels it could never get the support it needs to legitimately enact, in contravention of the public's trust.)
If the government *DID* call a constitutional convention for a new amendment to strike or amend the 2nd, and it passed, I would have no problems with legislation being penned and accepted that limits ownership and use of weaponry by general citizens.
As it stands though, the government is attempting a power grab that lacks legitimacy of law, and should not be tolerated.
Me? I don't own any guns. Don't have a need to. But if I did have a need of one, I could get one, as is my right. It would sit in a gun vault or display case as an ornament for 99% of its life, except as needed. (As the 2nd amendment intends.)
I see you have completely missed the point AC.
You pay for it, regardless.
You can pay for it with tax dollrs, or you can pay in people's lives.
There isn't a "I don't pay at all" option.
Hydrogen cyanate is deadly as a vapor in the PPM range.
An aerosol can sprayer is not hard to fabricate, and can be thrown in through a window. Like I said, the method of application is best left to the madman. I simply listed a nice easy way to go about it.
In this case, our killer was the son of an employee of said school. Getting into the school to plant a bomb is as simple as swiping her keys for the weekend, and getting a duplicate made.
Schools are hardly fort knox you know. (And titration is NOT hard to do at all. You can do it with an over the counter eyedropper. You can get them in the pen and ink section of an art supply store for under 3$, with tax. Special equipment is NOT needed to manufacture bombs. Drugs, yes. Bombs? No.)
30,000 every what? Year?
30,000/365 == 82.191/day
That is lower than the 100/day stat being batted around.
Or, do you mean that 30,000 deaths occur each day? In which case, the odds of being shot are *still* 4 places to the right of the decimal point. (.00012:1 ratio)
Or are you going to say it si per hour now?
Because the .22 calibre rifles and handguns used by this shooter are NOT "rediculously powerful firearms."
Seriously. They are target practice rounds, that are useless agains even the softest of bullet resisting armors.
Here, here's a picture for you to mull over:
size comparison of several standardized rounds
See that little pipsqueek on the far right? That's what comes out of the "assault rifle" the killer from this story used. It is literally the size of 3 BBs glued together, with a few grams of powder behind it. Cartridge and all, it weighs less then 20 grams.
Compare that with the REAL assault rifle rounds on the far left, and you have a better idea of why this is a farce.