The major language in India is English (it was a part of the Empire for a very long time). While many try to push Hindi, it is not truly "national", so English is the standard in business and technology. You're unlikely to find much discussion of the finer points of Python list comprehensions in Hindi....
I didn't know about the language thing. My main contact with people in India is call centres and the accents are so strong and hard to understand I just assumed it was the engish-is-a-second-language thing. It never occurred to me that it was most likely simply an accent. I guess I should get out more.
Examples of snooping that lack the ability to do a MITM attack:
1. Listening to an encrypted wifi session, then breaking the encryption offline
Are you really going to do this with an AES encrypted wireless session?
2. Tapping into undersea fiber (the listening party is going to have a hard enough time exfiltrating the snooped bytes; setting up a "take over" command and associated equipment is prohibitive due to both the technical and political risks)
Prohibitive compared to actually pulling off the attack you describe?
3. Listening device inside a government facility. China famously does this for example by using a small office-supply firm to get equipment into a US facility somewhere is Asia; the copy machine has a hard drive like any copy machine and there's nothing suspicious about that, right? And then you find the second, and the third, and the fourth hard drive hidden in places you would never look. The data is exfiltrated only when the machine is replaced as part of a regular service contract.
Again, interception in that case is possible, and easy. You are already arp flooding the network to overload the switch and force it into broadcast mode so you can sniff it (otherwise you'll get no pop3 traffic), and the rest is a solved problem. In either case you will be noticed though.
If you can't afford the $13 per year to get an official cert, you shouldn't be in business.
Agree. There is more money in the time it takes to go through the certificate generation process (self signed or csr) and installing it than in the cost of the cert.
But its better -- for Google and users -- for Google not support self-signed certs than to support them in a way which provides illusory security, which is what Google was doing before it discontinued support for them.
That is wrong. Here is the hierarchy. 1. No security (OK) 2. Encryption (Better) 3. Encryption and Authentication (Best) Saying that 1 is better than 2 is wrong. After Google connects to a server just once and stores the key, all subsequent connections can be encrypted and verified that they are made to the same server. This fear of encryption without authentication is very ignorant.
Disagree. Encryption doesn't matter if the encryption is to the enemy. Anyone in a position to snoop on the traffic is in a position to redirect the traffic to themselves and provide their own self-signed cert in place of yours (give me an example of where this isn't true - there might be some but there won't be many!). From a security point of view, 1 and 2 are equal, but then SSL is extra overhead and a false sense of security, so 1 is better.
This used to be good advice, because Macs were such a small share of the market that the malware authors didn't bother with them. This isn't quite so true any more.
If you want to get them a platform that won't be targeted by malware authors for quite some time, install Linux Mint on their PC. As a bonus, it won't cost anything extra (unless they have some shitty printer that has no Linux support, but a new Linux-compatible printer is much cheaper than a new Mac). As an extra bonus, you can install the KDE version of Linux Mint and assuming they're coming from XP or Win7, they won't even have to learn a whole new GUI paradigm.
We have detected a suspicious transaction in your bank account. Please go to http://www.sitethatlookslikeyourbankbutisnt.com.ru/ and enter your username and password to confirm the transaction and also enter a brief description about why you think the OS you are running makes a difference here.
When you have a filesystem that understands hard links, deduplication is redundant.
I would argue that maybe it doesn't belong in the filesystem in the first place. If you have a bunch of VM's all with (say) Debian Wheezy then deduplication in the backend storage would do much more than simple FS deduplication. Some FS knowledge in the storage would be useful (eg files with the same name in each FS are probably a good place to start to look for duplicates) but even that is just an optimisation and isn't required.
Why would you spread a database over multiple Logical Volumes. That just sounds like a poorly engineered LVM setup. Am I wrong?
The idea is to spread it over separate underlying disks or RAID sets. MSSQL and Exchange transaction logs are pretty much write only. The databases themselves are read/write, obviously, but still might be read-mostly or write-mostly. By putting them on separate array's you can optimize the caching, RAID type, and RAID stripe size in each array for its intended purpose. Even spreading different database tables over different arrays can help too depending on the usage patterns.
Oracle have the similar recommendations for their database setups too.
Even under a basic Linux setup with / in one lv,/var in another, and/home in another, the delay between snapshotting each one isn't desirable, although it is unlikely to have any real-world impact.
I'm still not getting how you can simultaneously snapshot dbdata (optimised for read and write) and logdata (optimised for write) as an atomic operation. "Tough Love (215404)" said "concatenate them together" but I don't get what that means in this context.
Last time I checked you would still have to snapshot one, then the other, and the resulting snapshots are almost certainly not going to give you a consistent backup because there would have been writes between the first and the second snapshots.
LVM is kind of cool but if you have a single database spread across multiple LV's then you can't snapshot them all as an atomic operation so it becomes useless.
You're also wrong about that. You can concatenate multiple logical volumes as a single logical volume and snapshot that atomically.
OK this is news to me. When I last asked about that it couldn't be done but that was a few years go. Google doesn't tell me how I can concatenate (say) my database lv and my logs lv (separate vg's because separate spindles), snapshot them, then un-concatenate them... a link would be appreciated.
Think about what this means. It is not a "copy-on-write", it is a "copy-before-write". Gross abuse of terminology if anybody tries to call it a "copy-on-write", which has the very specific meaning of "don't modify the destination data". Instead, copy it, then modify the copy. OK, are we clear? VSS does not do copy-on-write, it does copy-before-write.
Now let's think about the implications of that. First, the write needs to be blocked until the copy-before-write completes, otherwise the copied data is not sure to be on stable storage. The copy-before-write needs to read the data from its original position, write it to some save area, then update some metadata to remember which data was saved where. How many disk seeks is that, if it's a spinning disk? If the save area is on the same spinning disk? If it's flash, how much write multiplication is that? When all of that is finally done, the original write can be unblocked and allowed to proceed. In total, how much slower is that than a simple, linear write? If you said "on the order of an order of magnitude" you would be in the ballpark. In face, it can get way worse than that if you are unlucky. In the best imaginable case, your write performance is going to take a hit by a factor of three. Usually, much much worse.
OK, did we get this straight? As a final exercise, see if you can figure out who was talking nonsense.
I concede that the terminology used by the MS article is misused. I don't think you're thinking the performance issues through though. You start with a file nicely laid out linearly on disk, and you take a snapshot so you can make a backup. Now you make a modification to the middle of the file and what happens? Suddenly the middle of the file is elsewhere on disk, and in the case of LVM this is invisible to the filesystem so no amount of defragging is going to fix it. This situation persists long after you have taken your backup and thrown the snapshot away. Of course this doesn't matter for flash but we're not all there yet. If BTRFS does snapshots using copy-on-write (correct definition) then this will be a problem too, although if BTRFS is smart enough it should be able to repair the situation once the snapshot is discarded.
VSS's way leaves the original data in-order on the storage medium. The difference area is likely on a completely different disk anyway so the copy-on-write (MS definition) could not be performed any other way.
NTFS doesn't have snapshots. Instead it relies on volume shadow copies, with known severe performance artifacts caused by needing to move snapshotted data out of the way when new writes come in. Btrfs, like ZFS and Netapp's WAFL, use a far more efficient copy-on-write strategy that avoids the write penalty. The takeaway: I would not go so far as to claim Microsoft has an enterprise-worthy solution either. If you want something with industrial strength dedup, snapshots and fault tolerance, you won't be getting it from Micorosft.
What nonsense. VSS is the snapshot solution for NTFS, and of course it uses copy-on-write. Microsoft VSS backup architecture is years ahead of Linux... LVM is kind of cool but if you have a single database spread across multiple LV's then you can't snapshot them all as an atomic operation so it becomes useless. MS VSS does this, and always has.
I'm normally a Linux fanboi but when you sprout rubbish like this I have no hesitation in correcting you.
I'm all for stricter gun control, but talking about it just after a mass shooting when emotions are high is just dumb. Doing that leads to arguments like "if all the teachers had guns this guy wouldn't have killed nearly as many people".
new efficiency @ load % - old efficiency @ load % = delta% integrate over time (delta%*cost kw/hr) until result = new unit cost (solve for t)
You're missing the savings on removing that excess heat from your house too (in climates where that is relevant).
In a cold climate where you are heating your house, unless you can get better $/unit heating out of something else, the "waste" energy is heating the house anyway so it doesn't matter much.
In a hot climate where you are cooling your house, every unit of heat that you put into the house has to be removed. Firstly from the computer by making the fans work harder, then from the house itself by making your AC work harder.
Where do you live, because I've lived in many places where seeing naked people on TV, billboards, newspapers, walking down the street, etc. was commonplace. A normal person does not get horny at the mere sight of nudity, a normal person gets horny in intimate and/or romantic situations.
I am guessing you have been stuck in a very sheltered and prudish location for your entire life.
nudity != sexual image
a sexual image does not necessarily even require nudity, although it helps;)
It is censorship, since you will get mostly irreverent results if you search for a porn actress by name for example. Apparently there are magic words to relax the censorship: "breast" actually reduces accuracy to 0%, while "tit" will produce more normal looking results, but it's unclear if these results are accurate or ones that particularly feature tits.
Going to have to stop using Image Search just like I stopped using Google Shopping, and really I wonder why I should bother going to google.com at all at this point...
If you stop and think about it instead of reacting, it might actually work to your advantage. If google has determined from your search keywords that you are in fact looking for porn, it might not clutter your results so much with non-porn results.
You'll lose plausible deniability from your search history though "But honey, I was just looking for pictures of cats!", but if you are hiding your searches from someone you have bigger things to worry about.
A fun April Fools joke would be to re-jig google to work the opposite way.
Oh you wanted to see pictures of Megan Fox with her clothes _on_?? you should have been more specific.
To find what you were looking for you'd need to search like "Megan Fox fully clothed with no camel toe and no nip slip and not looking in any way sexually suggestive" (0 results found)
I'm not sure why a well adjusted individual would be embarassed by poor search results. There's no reason, save our puritanical heritage, that seeing a stray cock and balls would be any worse than seeing an elbow or ear.
Firstly, how many humans on this planet are "well adjusted"??
Secondly, have you _ever_ been laid? Human beings are wired to be interested in and distracted by sex. Some more than others. Many evolutionary cycles have ensured that humans not particularly interested in sex were less likely to go on to produce more humans with similar traits. Basically, if you see a sexual image there is a good chance you're going to get horny[1], and it's this not some strange idea of "puritanical heritige" that causes the embarassment you speak of.
Pictures of elbows and ears are much less likely to distract someone from whatever they are doing at the time.
Any speculation as to what the underlying issue is with those specific cards?
Sure. I'd go with bad drivers. For some reason drivers never seem to have quite the same quality control as hardware... I guess because hardware is a bit harder to patch.
So business is petitioning the government to make a law that the people do not want... seems like we've been here before, and business normally wins. Okay I don't know about "normally wins" but it's certainly happened before. At least with DMCA while I don't agree with the motivations behind it it's at least an order of magnitude more rational than this.
Okay, what if I submit a design to print a 3D gun (or replacement parts for one)? What about the packaging for, say, a credit card skimmer? How about a timing circuit made entirely out of electrically-conductive plastic (so it doesn't show up on an x-ray scanner)?
Um, then you should receive a 3D gun, the packaging for a credit card skimmer, or a timing circuit. Haven't we gotten past this "make the tools illegal" crap yet? It's what you do with them, not the item itself that's problematic, and there are valid uses for all the above.
I think you'll find that if you are found to have an unlicensed firearm, your pathetic cries of "but I have a valid use for it!!!" will not do you much good.
Okay, what if I submit a design to print a 3D gun (or replacement parts for one)? What about the packaging for, say, a credit card skimmer? How about a timing circuit made entirely out of electrically-conductive plastic (so it doesn't show up on an x-ray scanner)? I can only hope they look at the things being submitted; But I'm reminded of the scene in Batman begins where Alfred says, "Well, we'll have to order a lot of them in order to avoid suspicion." "Oh? How many?" "About ten thousand sir." "Well, at least we'll have spares."
3D printers open up a whole new world for both good and bad applications. If they aren't thinking about this now, they should start -- because someone else is reading this right now and tapping their fingers together saying "myes, myes my pretties..."
I don't think this is quite the problem you make it out to be, but it's a perfect angle for the IP protection guys to take... they will be terrified that it will rip the bottom out of their spare parts market (I can't replace the worn out piece of rubber/plastic on my car keys, I have to buy a whole new key assembly for around $300!) but they'll pressure the government to shut it down because it means that little Suzie can order a gun over the internet and the existing laws on gun ownership just won't cut it. And any protests will be met with a very loud "think of the children".
Slashdot Mirror
The major language in India is English (it was a part of the Empire for a very long time). While many try to push Hindi, it is not truly "national", so English is the standard in business and technology. You're unlikely to find much discussion of the finer points of Python list comprehensions in Hindi....
I didn't know about the language thing. My main contact with people in India is call centres and the accents are so strong and hard to understand I just assumed it was the engish-is-a-second-language thing. It never occurred to me that it was most likely simply an accent. I guess I should get out more.
Examples of snooping that lack the ability to do a MITM attack:
1. Listening to an encrypted wifi session, then breaking the encryption offline
Are you really going to do this with an AES encrypted wireless session?
2. Tapping into undersea fiber (the listening party is going to have a hard enough time exfiltrating the snooped bytes; setting up a "take over" command and associated equipment is prohibitive due to both the technical and political risks)
Prohibitive compared to actually pulling off the attack you describe?
3. Listening device inside a government facility. China famously does this for example by using a small office-supply firm to get equipment into a US facility somewhere is Asia; the copy machine has a hard drive like any copy machine and there's nothing suspicious about that, right? And then you find the second, and the third, and the fourth hard drive hidden in places you would never look. The data is exfiltrated only when the machine is replaced as part of a regular service contract.
Again, interception in that case is possible, and easy. You are already arp flooding the network to overload the switch and force it into broadcast mode so you can sniff it (otherwise you'll get no pop3 traffic), and the rest is a solved problem. In either case you will be noticed though.
Need I go on?
Please do.
If you can't afford the $13 per year to get an official cert, you shouldn't be in business.
Agree. There is more money in the time it takes to go through the certificate generation process (self signed or csr) and installing it than in the cost of the cert.
But its better -- for Google and users -- for Google not support self-signed certs than to support them in a way which provides illusory security, which is what Google was doing before it discontinued support for them.
That is wrong. Here is the hierarchy.
1. No security (OK)
2. Encryption (Better)
3. Encryption and Authentication (Best)
Saying that 1 is better than 2 is wrong. After Google connects to a server just once and stores the key, all subsequent connections can be encrypted and verified that they are made to the same server. This fear of encryption without authentication is very ignorant.
Disagree. Encryption doesn't matter if the encryption is to the enemy. Anyone in a position to snoop on the traffic is in a position to redirect the traffic to themselves and provide their own self-signed cert in place of yours (give me an example of where this isn't true - there might be some but there won't be many!). From a security point of view, 1 and 2 are equal, but then SSL is extra overhead and a false sense of security, so 1 is better.
I hope we find some oil there too. By accident of course.
This used to be good advice, because Macs were such a small share of the market that the malware authors didn't bother with them. This isn't quite so true any more.
If you want to get them a platform that won't be targeted by malware authors for quite some time, install Linux Mint on their PC. As a bonus, it won't cost anything extra (unless they have some shitty printer that has no Linux support, but a new Linux-compatible printer is much cheaper than a new Mac). As an extra bonus, you can install the KDE version of Linux Mint and assuming they're coming from XP or Win7, they won't even have to learn a whole new GUI paradigm.
We have detected a suspicious transaction in your bank account. Please go to http://www.sitethatlookslikeyourbankbutisnt.com.ru/ and enter your username and password to confirm the transaction and also enter a brief description about why you think the OS you are running makes a difference here.
When you have a filesystem that understands hard links, deduplication is redundant.
I would argue that maybe it doesn't belong in the filesystem in the first place. If you have a bunch of VM's all with (say) Debian Wheezy then deduplication in the backend storage would do much more than simple FS deduplication. Some FS knowledge in the storage would be useful (eg files with the same name in each FS are probably a good place to start to look for duplicates) but even that is just an optimisation and isn't required.
Dear Microsoft spinmods: you don't change the fact that your volume snapshots suck by modding down my post.
Troll is a little harsh... I disagree with you but I know you're not trolling and the discussion is still an Interesting one.
Why would you spread a database over multiple Logical Volumes. That just sounds like a poorly engineered LVM setup. Am I wrong?
The idea is to spread it over separate underlying disks or RAID sets. MSSQL and Exchange transaction logs are pretty much write only. The databases themselves are read/write, obviously, but still might be read-mostly or write-mostly. By putting them on separate array's you can optimize the caching, RAID type, and RAID stripe size in each array for its intended purpose. Even spreading different database tables over different arrays can help too depending on the usage patterns.
Oracle have the similar recommendations for their database setups too.
Even under a basic Linux setup with / in one lv, /var in another, and /home in another, the delay between snapshotting each one isn't desirable, although it is unlikely to have any real-world impact.
I'm still not getting how you can simultaneously snapshot dbdata (optimised for read and write) and logdata (optimised for write) as an atomic operation. "Tough Love (215404)" said "concatenate them together" but I don't get what that means in this context.
Last time I checked you would still have to snapshot one, then the other, and the resulting snapshots are almost certainly not going to give you a consistent backup because there would have been writes between the first and the second snapshots.
LVM is kind of cool but if you have a single database spread across multiple LV's then you can't snapshot them all as an atomic operation so it becomes useless.
You're also wrong about that. You can concatenate multiple logical volumes as a single logical volume and snapshot that atomically.
OK this is news to me. When I last asked about that it couldn't be done but that was a few years go. Google doesn't tell me how I can concatenate (say) my database lv and my logs lv (separate vg's because separate spindles), snapshot them, then un-concatenate them... a link would be appreciated.
VSS is the snapshot solution for NTFS, and of course it uses copy-on-write
Well. Maybe you better sit down in a comfortable chair and think about this a bit. From Microsoft's site: When a change to the original volume occurs, but before it is written to disk, the block about to be modified is read and then written to a “differences area”, which preserves a copy of the data block before it is overwritten with the change.
Think about what this means. It is not a "copy-on-write", it is a "copy-before-write". Gross abuse of terminology if anybody tries to call it a "copy-on-write", which has the very specific meaning of "don't modify the destination data". Instead, copy it, then modify the copy. OK, are we clear? VSS does not do copy-on-write, it does copy-before-write.
Now let's think about the implications of that. First, the write needs to be blocked until the copy-before-write completes, otherwise the copied data is not sure to be on stable storage. The copy-before-write needs to read the data from its original position, write it to some save area, then update some metadata to remember which data was saved where. How many disk seeks is that, if it's a spinning disk? If the save area is on the same spinning disk? If it's flash, how much write multiplication is that? When all of that is finally done, the original write can be unblocked and allowed to proceed. In total, how much slower is that than a simple, linear write? If you said "on the order of an order of magnitude" you would be in the ballpark. In face, it can get way worse than that if you are unlucky. In the best imaginable case, your write performance is going to take a hit by a factor of three. Usually, much much worse.
OK, did we get this straight? As a final exercise, see if you can figure out who was talking nonsense.
I concede that the terminology used by the MS article is misused. I don't think you're thinking the performance issues through though. You start with a file nicely laid out linearly on disk, and you take a snapshot so you can make a backup. Now you make a modification to the middle of the file and what happens? Suddenly the middle of the file is elsewhere on disk, and in the case of LVM this is invisible to the filesystem so no amount of defragging is going to fix it. This situation persists long after you have taken your backup and thrown the snapshot away. Of course this doesn't matter for flash but we're not all there yet. If BTRFS does snapshots using copy-on-write (correct definition) then this will be a problem too, although if BTRFS is smart enough it should be able to repair the situation once the snapshot is discarded.
VSS's way leaves the original data in-order on the storage medium. The difference area is likely on a completely different disk anyway so the copy-on-write (MS definition) could not be performed any other way.
NTFS doesn't have snapshots. Instead it relies on volume shadow copies, with known severe performance artifacts caused by needing to move snapshotted data out of the way when new writes come in. Btrfs, like ZFS and Netapp's WAFL, use a far more efficient copy-on-write strategy that avoids the write penalty. The takeaway: I would not go so far as to claim Microsoft has an enterprise-worthy solution either. If you want something with industrial strength dedup, snapshots and fault tolerance, you won't be getting it from Micorosft.
What nonsense. VSS is the snapshot solution for NTFS, and of course it uses copy-on-write. Microsoft VSS backup architecture is years ahead of Linux... LVM is kind of cool but if you have a single database spread across multiple LV's then you can't snapshot them all as an atomic operation so it becomes useless. MS VSS does this, and always has.
I'm normally a Linux fanboi but when you sprout rubbish like this I have no hesitation in correcting you.
It is time to amend the 2nd amendment.
I'm all for stricter gun control, but talking about it just after a mass shooting when emotions are high is just dumb. Doing that leads to arguments like "if all the teachers had guns this guy wouldn't have killed nearly as many people".
The other reason for buying a high efficiency PSU is to reduce noise. More heat means more air movement required to carry it out of the case.
And in turn, the energy required to move that air isn't free either.
new efficiency @ load % - old efficiency @ load % = delta%
integrate over time (delta%*cost kw/hr) until result = new unit cost (solve for t)
You're missing the savings on removing that excess heat from your house too (in climates where that is relevant).
In a cold climate where you are heating your house, unless you can get better $/unit heating out of something else, the "waste" energy is heating the house anyway so it doesn't matter much.
In a hot climate where you are cooling your house, every unit of heat that you put into the house has to be removed. Firstly from the computer by making the fans work harder, then from the house itself by making your AC work harder.
Please revise your maths accordingly.
Where do you live, because I've lived in many places where seeing naked people on TV, billboards, newspapers, walking down the street, etc. was commonplace. A normal person does not get horny at the mere sight of nudity, a normal person gets horny in intimate and/or romantic situations.
I am guessing you have been stuck in a very sheltered and prudish location for your entire life.
nudity != sexual image
a sexual image does not necessarily even require nudity, although it helps ;)
Did you write that sig especially for TFA?
It is censorship, since you will get mostly irreverent results if you search for a porn actress by name for example. Apparently there are magic words to relax the censorship: "breast" actually reduces accuracy to 0%, while "tit" will produce more normal looking results, but it's unclear if these results are accurate or ones that particularly feature tits.
Going to have to stop using Image Search just like I stopped using Google Shopping, and really I wonder why I should bother going to google.com at all at this point...
If you stop and think about it instead of reacting, it might actually work to your advantage. If google has determined from your search keywords that you are in fact looking for porn, it might not clutter your results so much with non-porn results.
You'll lose plausible deniability from your search history though "But honey, I was just looking for pictures of cats!", but if you are hiding your searches from someone you have bigger things to worry about.
A fun April Fools joke would be to re-jig google to work the opposite way.
Oh you wanted to see pictures of Megan Fox with her clothes _on_?? you should have been more specific.
To find what you were looking for you'd need to search like "Megan Fox fully clothed with no camel toe and no nip slip and not looking in any way sexually suggestive" (0 results found)
I'm not sure why a well adjusted individual would be embarassed by poor search results. There's no reason, save our puritanical heritage, that seeing a stray cock and balls would be any worse than seeing an elbow or ear.
Firstly, how many humans on this planet are "well adjusted"??
Secondly, have you _ever_ been laid? Human beings are wired to be interested in and distracted by sex. Some more than others. Many evolutionary cycles have ensured that humans not particularly interested in sex were less likely to go on to produce more humans with similar traits. Basically, if you see a sexual image there is a good chance you're going to get horny[1], and it's this not some strange idea of "puritanical heritige" that causes the embarassment you speak of.
Pictures of elbows and ears are much less likely to distract someone from whatever they are doing at the time.
[1] or maybe that's just me?
Any speculation as to what the underlying issue is with those specific cards?
Sure. I'd go with bad drivers. For some reason drivers never seem to have quite the same quality control as hardware... I guess because hardware is a bit harder to patch.
So business is petitioning the government to make a law that the people do not want... seems like we've been here before, and business normally wins. Okay I don't know about "normally wins" but it's certainly happened before. At least with DMCA while I don't agree with the motivations behind it it's at least an order of magnitude more rational than this.
Okay, what if I submit a design to print a 3D gun (or replacement parts for one)? What about the packaging for, say, a credit card skimmer? How about a timing circuit made entirely out of electrically-conductive plastic (so it doesn't show up on an x-ray scanner)?
Um, then you should receive a 3D gun, the packaging for a credit card skimmer, or a timing circuit. Haven't we gotten past this "make the tools illegal" crap yet? It's what you do with them, not the item itself that's problematic, and there are valid uses for all the above.
I think you'll find that if you are found to have an unlicensed firearm, your pathetic cries of "but I have a valid use for it!!!" will not do you much good.
Okay, what if I submit a design to print a 3D gun (or replacement parts for one)? What about the packaging for, say, a credit card skimmer? How about a timing circuit made entirely out of electrically-conductive plastic (so it doesn't show up on an x-ray scanner)? I can only hope they look at the things being submitted; But I'm reminded of the scene in Batman begins where Alfred says, "Well, we'll have to order a lot of them in order to avoid suspicion." "Oh? How many?" "About ten thousand sir." "Well, at least we'll have spares."
3D printers open up a whole new world for both good and bad applications. If they aren't thinking about this now, they should start -- because someone else is reading this right now and tapping their fingers together saying "myes, myes my pretties..."
I don't think this is quite the problem you make it out to be, but it's a perfect angle for the IP protection guys to take... they will be terrified that it will rip the bottom out of their spare parts market (I can't replace the worn out piece of rubber/plastic on my car keys, I have to buy a whole new key assembly for around $300!) but they'll pressure the government to shut it down because it means that little Suzie can order a gun over the internet and the existing laws on gun ownership just won't cut it. And any protests will be met with a very loud "think of the children".