No, it's not bullshit. My first tactical handgun class consisted of 8 people using a mix of Glocks, a Sig P220, a P99, and a couple of different 1911 variants, and not a single one of us had an issue with it, nor have I seen any substantial problems with it in any subsequent classes. In my case, I have a G30 and a G26 with aftermarket sights that I regularly carry and can easily do it with either of them. (Yeah, I know the G27 would have been a stronger choice, but the ammo is cheaper for the 26 so I end up practicing more with it)
I can see where it would be challenging if you have rear sights with a curved or beveled front edge that are designed not to hang up on clothing, however. In order to do it, you absolutely have to have a nice sharp edge on the rear sight, and if your guns have no-hang sights, that might be why it's tough for you. I suppose it could also be difficult if your slides have ridiculously strong springs, but like I said, I don't have problems with either of my Glocks.
Most people that own a semi-auto pistol probably can't, and this is a problem. My own belief is that if you're going to carry, you need to learn how to use it, and not just by punching a few holes in paper once every few months to maintain basic marksmanship. The mechanics of shooting are simple, but people also need to know how to clear malfunctions, identify and use cover, practice retention techniques, etc., and I wish that more people would spend the time and money to learn more about self-defense in general. The best gunfight is the one you don't have because you identified a situation before it could develop and were able to avoid it.
My original point was just that it's possible to rack the slide with one hand.:-)
On most semi-autos, it's actually pretty easy to rack the slide one-handed by catching the rear sight on the back of your shoe or even your belt if the need arises. It's one of the things that any decent tactical handgun course will teach you, along with one-handed malfunction clearance drills. Having said that, I never carry without a chambered round for a variety of reasons. Agreed that a good holster is key to preventing ADs, along with a healthy dose of paying attention.
Perhaps the fact that Superchips, Bully Dog, and other performance tool vendors do exactly this on a regular basis armed with not much more than the appropriate OBD-II interface. It's not simple, and you'll almost certainly brick a number of ECUs in the process, but it's far from impossible.
Then you contact your ISP and ask to have the port opened like the previous poster said. We're not talking about an unconditional ban of port 25 traffic forever.
Did you not read the parent's comment about having ports opened on request before you decided to start flinging the ad homs? The vast majority of home users don't grab their mail from remote servers via POP or IMAP (POP is on port 110, not 25, BTW), and the vast majority of Yahoo and Google mail is delivered via their web interface.
Jesus Christ, use a little bit of critical thought before nerdraging.
people ONLY turn to revolution if they can't feed themselves
Or unless they're just sufficiently unhappy with the state of the current government. I don't recall that New England had a particularly bad problem with its citizens starving at the hands of the government back in 1776.
Certainly revolutions *can* be triggered by intolerable living conditions, but not necessarily so.
ACTA is being negotiated by the executive branch, the US Trade Rep, so don't blame Congress.
Yet. Ultimately, Congress will still have to vote on the treaty, but I don't see them putting up too much of a fight. Congressmen/senators have a proven history of passing legislation that they don't even bother to read.
But you can tell them to perform preventative maintenence like fluid changes, etc. Then it is their fault if they think they know better and ignore the manufacturer's recommendations.
The analogy breaks down when you consider that a non-trivial number of updates cause problems that take a fair bit of time to resolve. People would be a lot more reluctant to get that air filter changed if they knew there was a 1 in 10 chance that their car's wheels would fall off on the way home.
Blizzard Entertainment started using a similar (optional) system for their Battle.net accounts to combat account theft - they offer a small hardware authenticator that is totally separate from the PC for $6.50. You first associate the authenticator's serial number with your Battle.net account, then any time you want to play, you log in with your user/pass, and they request a code from the authenticator. Press the button on the authenticator, and it displays a 6-digit number that you then enter online. The number is good for about 30 seconds, then becomes invalid. Their devices are Vasco's Digipass Go 6.
At first blush it appears to be a reasonably secure system, although Blizz also offers Java-based software versions with the same functionality that can be used on a variety of cell phones, so I'd wonder if the key generation algorithm could be cracked via that means. Even if it was, it seems that it'd still be difficult to generate a correct response without knowing the key that's registered with the system.
The employees are covered for loss of wages by the GEERS scheme, which they can submit and get their: Lost wages; Lost holiday pay; Redundancy payout (according to industry standards or their contract, and if contract its subject to evaluation).
Here in the US, we don't even get a subsidy for the KY jelly to make it a little more comfortable.
Umm, except for the part about never paying them a dime for hours they already worked. The DOL would be all over them if they tried that one.
Not as much as you'd think. The Department of Labor doesn't care about anything except that the employee gets paid the federal minimum wage, and that overtime is paid when earned. Did you get stiffed for a month's work at your salary of $80K/year? The DoL will force them to pay you for that month at $7.25/hour, plus that amount again as liquidated damages. Anything else you'll have to pursue on your own via civil court unless your state has decent worker protection laws, and even then it won't really matter if the company goes bankrupt.
I'm dealing with this situation right now - a previous employer screwed me out of a few thousand dollars (although there were other employees that are owed far, far more money), and neither Georgia (where the employer is based) nor Florida (where I am) have any employee protections worth a damn, so really the only recourse I have is to pursue them in court myself on my own dime and hope they don't declare bankruptcy before I can get a judgement and subsequent lien. At least if I have the lien it will put me in a much better position if they do BK on me. The funny thing is that they got all upset and fired me for refusing to come back into the office until they'd paid me when (at the time) they were three payrolls behind.
Lots of places apparently think it's okay to extract interest-free loans from their employees and to force *them* to shoulder the financial risk, instead of the shareholders. Some of them even have the unmitigated gall to tell the employees that they're not being "team players" when they refuse to do so.
A true capitalist would not have started such a company off a government grant, nor would their workers continued working for no pay.
Perhaps not, but he almost certainly would have hidden behind the government's apron by incorporating in order to keep his employees from holding him personally liable, even when his actions resulted in a loss for them.
It's laughable when people talk about "capitalism" but then still demand the government protect them from the consequences of their own bad decisions.
I wasn't talking about whether it was Orwellian or not, rather I was responding to the comment that it wasn't something that Apple was keeping secret from its customers. Sorry for the confusion.
I don't really see that Apple's actions could be construed as Orwellian in the least. Comparing the world that Winston Smith lived in to having a covert liquid sensor in your cell phone is just silly. Apple (or Nokia, or RIM, or whoever) using these sensors is no different than Western Digital, Seagate, and every other hard disk manufacturer putting anti-tamper stickers over the cover screws, with the exception that the stickers are obvious, whereas the moisture sensors aren't, and that there appears to be a legitimate concern that the sensors can indicate false positives. You don't see people getting their panties in a bunch about WD's actions though.
He said "to most people", and this is the absolute truth. The vast majority of people have no knowledge that mobile phones are equipped with these sensors, and there's absolutely zero on the packaging or the user documentation to indicate such in almost all cases when it would be trivial to do so, which is prima facie evidence of the manufacturer's intent to conceal the presence of the sensors from their customers. It's just like the practice of putting a Tip-N-Tell inside a crate containing expensive equipment in addition to the ones placed on the outside, to reveal if the shipper has mishandled the package and tried to cover it up - you want to make sure the shipper is honest, but you don't want the shipper to know you're watching him.
Just the same, I don't necessarily disagree with Apple or anyone else using them (even covertly), as long as they're absolutely reliable - warranty fraud is a real problem, but so is having a legitimate warranty claim denied just because you live in Florida and it got cold one day.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not bullshit. My first tactical handgun class consisted of 8 people using a mix of Glocks, a Sig P220, a P99, and a couple of different 1911 variants, and not a single one of us had an issue with it, nor have I seen any substantial problems with it in any subsequent classes. In my case, I have a G30 and a G26 with aftermarket sights that I regularly carry and can easily do it with either of them. (Yeah, I know the G27 would have been a stronger choice, but the ammo is cheaper for the 26 so I end up practicing more with it)
I can see where it would be challenging if you have rear sights with a curved or beveled front edge that are designed not to hang up on clothing, however. In order to do it, you absolutely have to have a nice sharp edge on the rear sight, and if your guns have no-hang sights, that might be why it's tough for you. I suppose it could also be difficult if your slides have ridiculously strong springs, but like I said, I don't have problems with either of my Glocks.
Most people that own a semi-auto pistol probably can't, and this is a problem. My own belief is that if you're going to carry, you need to learn how to use it, and not just by punching a few holes in paper once every few months to maintain basic marksmanship. The mechanics of shooting are simple, but people also need to know how to clear malfunctions, identify and use cover, practice retention techniques, etc., and I wish that more people would spend the time and money to learn more about self-defense in general. The best gunfight is the one you don't have because you identified a situation before it could develop and were able to avoid it.
:-)
My original point was just that it's possible to rack the slide with one hand.
It was a .380 semi-auto pistol. Where did you get that it was a shotgun?
On most semi-autos, it's actually pretty easy to rack the slide one-handed by catching the rear sight on the back of your shoe or even your belt if the need arises. It's one of the things that any decent tactical handgun course will teach you, along with one-handed malfunction clearance drills. Having said that, I never carry without a chambered round for a variety of reasons. Agreed that a good holster is key to preventing ADs, along with a healthy dose of paying attention.
But the exoskeleton itself will weigh 250 lbs, so you'll be right back where you started. :-)
Or a builder claiming ownership of the form of your house.
This link goes to a PDF describing the concept of architectural copyrights.
what makes you think it's simple?
Perhaps the fact that Superchips, Bully Dog, and other performance tool vendors do exactly this on a regular basis armed with not much more than the appropriate OBD-II interface. It's not simple, and you'll almost certainly brick a number of ECUs in the process, but it's far from impossible.
Then you contact your ISP and ask to have the port opened like the previous poster said. We're not talking about an unconditional ban of port 25 traffic forever.
I believe the parent was refering to outbound mail, not inbound
I knew exactly what he was referring to, thanks.
Did you not read the parent's comment about having ports opened on request before you decided to start flinging the ad homs? The vast majority of home users don't grab their mail from remote servers via POP or IMAP (POP is on port 110, not 25, BTW), and the vast majority of Yahoo and Google mail is delivered via their web interface.
Jesus Christ, use a little bit of critical thought before nerdraging.
SMTP - home users should only be able to connect to port 25 on their ISPs mail server.
I don't really understand why egress filtering like this isn't being done as a routine course of business these days.
people ONLY turn to revolution if they can't feed themselves
Or unless they're just sufficiently unhappy with the state of the current government. I don't recall that New England had a particularly bad problem with its citizens starving at the hands of the government back in 1776.
Certainly revolutions *can* be triggered by intolerable living conditions, but not necessarily so.
ACTA is being negotiated by the executive branch, the US Trade Rep, so don't blame Congress.
Yet. Ultimately, Congress will still have to vote on the treaty, but I don't see them putting up too much of a fight. Congressmen/senators have a proven history of passing legislation that they don't even bother to read.
They went to the domains' REGISTRAR (GoDaddy) and got THEM to disable the domains.
Wouldn't be surprised if anyone off the street couldn't have done the same thing. This *is* GoDaddy we're talking about.
But you can tell them to perform preventative maintenence like fluid changes, etc. Then it is their fault if they think they know better and ignore the manufacturer's recommendations.
The analogy breaks down when you consider that a non-trivial number of updates cause problems that take a fair bit of time to resolve. People would be a lot more reluctant to get that air filter changed if they knew there was a 1 in 10 chance that their car's wheels would fall off on the way home.
You're right, some of their user interfaces are called Bob too. :-)
Blizzard Entertainment started using a similar (optional) system for their Battle.net accounts to combat account theft - they offer a small hardware authenticator that is totally separate from the PC for $6.50. You first associate the authenticator's serial number with your Battle.net account, then any time you want to play, you log in with your user/pass, and they request a code from the authenticator. Press the button on the authenticator, and it displays a 6-digit number that you then enter online. The number is good for about 30 seconds, then becomes invalid. Their devices are Vasco's Digipass Go 6.
At first blush it appears to be a reasonably secure system, although Blizz also offers Java-based software versions with the same functionality that can be used on a variety of cell phones, so I'd wonder if the key generation algorithm could be cracked via that means. Even if it was, it seems that it'd still be difficult to generate a correct response without knowing the key that's registered with the system.
Which is why the RC church (amongst others) made suicide a mortal sin
Great, now I have the image of the Pope with a 4-channel controller standing on his balcony, driving the cardinals all around St. Peter's Square...
The employees are covered for loss of wages by the GEERS scheme, which they can submit and get their: Lost wages; Lost holiday pay; Redundancy payout (according to industry standards or their contract, and if contract its subject to evaluation).
Here in the US, we don't even get a subsidy for the KY jelly to make it a little more comfortable.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter...
Umm, except for the part about never paying them a dime for hours they already worked. The DOL would be all over them if they tried that one.
Not as much as you'd think. The Department of Labor doesn't care about anything except that the employee gets paid the federal minimum wage, and that overtime is paid when earned. Did you get stiffed for a month's work at your salary of $80K/year? The DoL will force them to pay you for that month at $7.25/hour, plus that amount again as liquidated damages. Anything else you'll have to pursue on your own via civil court unless your state has decent worker protection laws, and even then it won't really matter if the company goes bankrupt.
I'm dealing with this situation right now - a previous employer screwed me out of a few thousand dollars (although there were other employees that are owed far, far more money), and neither Georgia (where the employer is based) nor Florida (where I am) have any employee protections worth a damn, so really the only recourse I have is to pursue them in court myself on my own dime and hope they don't declare bankruptcy before I can get a judgement and subsequent lien. At least if I have the lien it will put me in a much better position if they do BK on me. The funny thing is that they got all upset and fired me for refusing to come back into the office until they'd paid me when (at the time) they were three payrolls behind.
Lots of places apparently think it's okay to extract interest-free loans from their employees and to force *them* to shoulder the financial risk, instead of the shareholders. Some of them even have the unmitigated gall to tell the employees that they're not being "team players" when they refuse to do so.
A true capitalist would not have started such a company off a government grant, nor would their workers continued working for no pay.
Perhaps not, but he almost certainly would have hidden behind the government's apron by incorporating in order to keep his employees from holding him personally liable, even when his actions resulted in a loss for them.
It's laughable when people talk about "capitalism" but then still demand the government protect them from the consequences of their own bad decisions.
Even signed agreements are worthless unless you have the money to enforce them in court.
I wasn't talking about whether it was Orwellian or not, rather I was responding to the comment that it wasn't something that Apple was keeping secret from its customers. Sorry for the confusion.
I don't really see that Apple's actions could be construed as Orwellian in the least. Comparing the world that Winston Smith lived in to having a covert liquid sensor in your cell phone is just silly. Apple (or Nokia, or RIM, or whoever) using these sensors is no different than Western Digital, Seagate, and every other hard disk manufacturer putting anti-tamper stickers over the cover screws, with the exception that the stickers are obvious, whereas the moisture sensors aren't, and that there appears to be a legitimate concern that the sensors can indicate false positives. You don't see people getting their panties in a bunch about WD's actions though.
No, it's not
He said "to most people", and this is the absolute truth. The vast majority of people have no knowledge that mobile phones are equipped with these sensors, and there's absolutely zero on the packaging or the user documentation to indicate such in almost all cases when it would be trivial to do so, which is prima facie evidence of the manufacturer's intent to conceal the presence of the sensors from their customers. It's just like the practice of putting a Tip-N-Tell inside a crate containing expensive equipment in addition to the ones placed on the outside, to reveal if the shipper has mishandled the package and tried to cover it up - you want to make sure the shipper is honest, but you don't want the shipper to know you're watching him.
Just the same, I don't necessarily disagree with Apple or anyone else using them (even covertly), as long as they're absolutely reliable - warranty fraud is a real problem, but so is having a legitimate warranty claim denied just because you live in Florida and it got cold one day.