willhamina's comments

willhamina | 9 years ago | on: Ars Technica founder on the AR-15

Keep the guns available! I'd rather have someone come after me with a gun than with a pressure cooker or fertilizer bomb:

- The gun can be a symbol conveying intent. Possibly one can negotiate or leave the premises in time. In contrast a pressure cooker in a corner does not immediately tell me that someone is out to get me. That is, I can be surprised more easily by an exploding pressure cooker or fertilizer bomb. At least with the gun I know what's going on.

- Fertilizer, gasoline and pressure cooker bombs do not tend to produce predictable wounds and often produce fatalities. I'm more likely to survive if an angry man shoots me than if he blows me up with a pressure cooker. Also the trauma surgeons have a better chance of stitching me up. Finally I'd rather live the rest of my life with a bullet in my butt than a pressure cooker lid up my ass.

willhamina | 9 years ago | on: Ars Technica founder on the AR-15

" I didn't see a huge push to ban pressure cookers after the Boston bombings."

You may not have noticed it but they were effectively banned from sale by all retail stores. I was tasked with buying a new pressure cooker not 3 weeks after the Boston bombings and I simply could not find one locally. After visiting all the local retail stores, I finally gave up and ordered one on Amazon.

willhamina | 9 years ago | on: Ars Technica founder on the AR-15

A foolish remark.

The shooter spent his time in different rooms, each full of people, many of whom could have overpowered him. At many times he was within arms' length of people. There are no reports whatsoever of anyone trying to "over power"[sic] him. They were likely frozen by fear, alcohol, drugs and wounds. I'm not blaming them, simply noting that they were unable to react. He had free reign.

Under such circumstances a serious shooter with a 12 gauge would generate far _more_ casualties. LOL all you want, the 12 gauge is way more destructive than an AR, especially at the short ranges involved.

willhamina | 11 years ago | on: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

Does systemd increase the security of the OS or reduce it? For example, does it allow currently-separated processes to dip into each others' memory space? I would appreciate a birds-eye view from someone familiar with the security ramifications of systemd.

Would not the incorporation of many loosely-coupled but individually secure mechanisms into a single monolithic mechanism be useful to an entity whose purpose was to monitor communications, view/modify systems unbeknownst to sysadmins and users, etc.? Yes, I'm talking about the NSA et al. I reference the following which also brings up Red Hat's control of Linux:

"Julian Assange: Debian Is Owned By The NSA"

http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/julian-assange-deb...

page 1