Rivalarrival

joined 1 year ago
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Also pressure regulators (like the one on the side of your house) have to vent to bring down the pressure when the network is too high.

No. They have to vent if your household pressure is too high. If, for example, cold gas was admitted into your lines, and that gas heated up, the pressure in your lines would increase. The regulator can't push that gas back into the high pressure main, so the regulator would have to bleed off the excess pressure.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

It's not the IT folks who need to be pushed. It's the users.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Who pocket carries?

Who carries a pistol unloaded?

Who carries a pistol with a manual safety?

I'm not trying to be insulting. Your points are valid and worthy of consideration. However, the issues you have raised have long since been addressed.

Typically, concealed carriers use "IWB" ("inside waistband") holsters to keep their handguns at the ready. Not a pocket. It's actually very easy to draw from an IWB holster.

All modern pistols are specifically designed to be safely carried with a round chambered. Some training doctrine calls for handguns to remain loaded but unchambered. Israeli soldiers carry without a round chambered, but they are the exception. The broad consensus now is that your carry/duty pistol should be loaded, chambered, and ready to fire.

External safeties were common in older pistol models intended for duty use, where the user might be on horseback, and they commonly used a belt holster with a large flap that required both hands to reholster. The thinking was that a safety made sense when the user has the gun in their hand, but their attention was on something other than shooting. For example, if a cavalry officer's horse were to start bucking, they were trained to immediately thumb on the safety and tend to their mount with pistol still in hand, rather than try to take the time to reholster.

Modern pistols are designed to be used with modern holsters. A modern holster protects the trigger from unintentional discharge. As soon as a carry gun is drawn, it needs to be ready to fire, so very few carry guns actually have manually operated safeties anymore. Modern duty holsters are designed for one-handed reholstering.

The internal safety features of modern handguns are intended to block the striker from hitting the cartridge in case of a mechanical malfunction. They are not intended to prevent firing when the trigger is pulled.

Please, ask reasonable questions and make reasonable observations. This is a serious subject. Please don't treat it like a joke.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

If you’re ever in a position where you need a gun, then it’s already too late to protect yourself

Someone has never heard of concealed carry. Nor have they ever heard something go bump in the night.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 points 5 months ago

Considering that only 2% is not Hydrogen or Helium

I assume that claim comes from:

The abundance of chemical elements in the universe is dominated by the large amounts of hydrogen and helium which were produced during the Big Bang. Remaining elements, making up only about 2% of the universe

I kind of doubt that hydrogen or helium comprise 98% of the mass of the 48 tons of meteors per day. I kinda suspect that the 48 tons of meteors are comprised almost entirely of "other" elements.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 5 months ago

Neither of those options is particularly appealing to me. I'd look at building a more respectable file server, with 4 or more SATA ports. I'd have a relatively tiny SSD to host the OS, and any number of HDDs in some variety of RAID array

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

SSDs are fast; HDDs are slow. I would not want my operating system hosted on an HDD if there is any way to avoid it. An external USB drive would have slow file operations to and from that drive; an internal HDD would slow the entire system.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Every machine I've purchased in the last 16 years has had a Linux liveCD or USB key before first power up. Windows has tried to boot a couple times, when I was too slow to figure out how to select a boot device, but none has actually completed the boot process. I take a sort of perverse pleasure in formatting pre-installed windows without it ever having run.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Wow, I actually forgot about Vista. I never actually had it installed on anything. XP was the last OS I had installed on hardware. Win 7 was the first I knew only from VM installations.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 33 points 5 months ago (10 children)

Straw that broke the camel's back? Every vertebra in that camel's back has been smashed with a sledge hammer over the past 30 years.

Windows 95 was the last version I was excited about; Windows 98 SE was the last version of Windows I willingly purchased, and XP was the last one I willingly used. When they announced Win7, I downloaded Ubuntu 6.06, "Dapper Drake". Since then, Windows has only existed on my computers as pirated, virtual machines.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The scenario you describe actually demonstrates my point. Where anonymity is "illegal", the only entity you can trust to protect your privacy is you.

That fact does not change when anonymity is "legal". That fact does not change even when anonymity is mandated. Even if it is a criminal act for me to make a record of who is accessing my service, that is only a legal restriction. It is not a technical restriction. You can't know whether I am abiding by such a law at the time you are accessing my service. A law mandating anonymity doesn't actually protect your anonymity; it just gives you the illusion that your anonymity is being protected.

The relevant difference between your scenario and reality is that in your scenario, nobody is blatantly lying about whether your privacy is under attack: it most certainly is.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The inherent flaw is thinking that "privacy" is something that the courts are capable of providing. They aren't. The most that government/courts could possibly do is make it illegal to generally and indiscriminately retain IP address records. But that only protects you from law-abiding privacy invaders; it does nothing to protect you from criminals who would use that information nefariously.

When you take adequate and appropriate steps to secure your privacy, it doesn't actually matter what the courts have to say about "privacy".

view more: ‹ prev next ›