Abortion/Marriage and Relationships/Second Amendment

Firearms to the left is like abortion and gay marriage to the right

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

It is at times interesting noting parallels of liberals discussing abortion and marriage laws, and conservatives discussing gun laws. The recent example here is Michaelangelo Signorile, Editor-at-large for Huffington Post’s Gay Voices section, and his article “Has the Anti-Gay Right Found Its Gay ‘Partial-Birth Abortion’?”

In the article, Signorile talks about how the pro-life right will not stop trying to chip away at abortion in the United States simply because of Roe v. Wade, and how that will become a model for what would happen should the Supreme Court of the United States issue a blanket decision overturning all gay marriage bans in the United States. Basically, they will be a bit more sneaky about it, using the cryptology of legalese to mask what they intend.

Yet if you look at the observations Signorile makes in his article, I cannot help but notice the parallels with what the left is trying to do with firearms rights in the United States. This paragraph in particular is key:

On abortion, they chipped away slowly at women’s freedom of choice, making abortion difficult to obtain and passing laws to restrict women’s rights even if some were and are later overturned. Some laws would stick, helping to limit abortion (often affecting poor women). And even when they ultimately lose, the right temporarily shuts down clinics or restricts access, creating a constant state of instability and keeping its agenda — and the often hateful rhetoric — in the national spotlight.

Let’s massage this paragraph a little bit:

On firearms, they chipped away slowly at gun rights, making firearms difficult to obtain and passing laws that restrict gun rights even if some were and are later overturned. Some laws would stick, helping to restrict guns (often affecting the poor). And even when they ultimately lose, the left temporarily cuts off or restricts access, creating a constant state of instability and keeping its agenda — and the often hateful rhetoric — in the national spotlight.

Doesn’t that summarize the gun control — excuse me, “gun safety” agenda in a heartbeat? Here’s another observation:

Test something out, see what works, and move on to something else if it doesn’t work.

Again, this is exactly what the left is trying to do with regard to firearms. The left will talk about needing to restrict guns to save lives, and the right will talk about needing to restrict abortion to save the unborn. And the sad thing is both sides are so clouded by their own ideologies they won’t see the hypocrisy, even when blatantly pointed out to them.

Even Signorile’s observation about how the gay rights movement has become somewhat complacent due to a lot of victories in recent years also applies to the gun rights advocates — or at least how we were ahead of Sandy Hook and Aurora:

It’s perplexing, but this seems to be part of a cocky strategy to act like winners and not give credence or attention to the haters. But when a state successfully passes an abhorrent, dangerous bill like the one in Arkansas, the only response is a loud, public condemnation, and demands that all your allies, including your business and political allies, speak out and condemn it. No matter if you lose, you must always show the opposition you will put up a nasty fight.

Again, let’s massage the language:

But when a state successfully passes an abhorrent, dangerous bill like the one in [Colorado, or other gun control state], the only response is a loud, public condemnation, and demands that your allies, including your business and political allies, speak out and condemn it. No matter if you lose, you must always show the opposition you will put up a nasty fight.

I don’t know Signorile’s stance on guns, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he were in favor of severe restrictions and bans on firearms. Yet even if I were to show him my observations herein, I wouldn’t change his mind in the least if that were the case, and he’d probably use predictable arguments to back up his assertions.

Rack mount HDD enclosure

Rack mount HDD enclosure, part 5

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 1 Comment
Build Log:

Let me start off with a simple question: why has Protocase never come up in my search results before? With their Protocase Designer software, I could create a CAD design of a 2Ux12″ enclosure with 4 cutouts in the front for 80mm fans plus a cutout for a 16mm vandal-resistant switch. Plus in the back of the case, I had a cutout for a FlexATX power supply (it’s actually just a square hole for the AC plug and holes for a 40mm fan, but close enough) and a cutout for the port multiplier.

And the software is the easiest I’d ever used for something like this. I’m not kidding. It is extremely intuitive. It comes with a pre-loaded library of cutouts for various things, and you can create your own cutouts if you know what you’re doing. Only downside is everything is in inches, and I’d love to see a metric option, so Protocase, if you happen across this, consider that an enhancement request.

And I was able to get an instant quote as well from the software:

Rack quoteFor a custom cut 2Ux12″ rack enclosure made from 18 gauge steel into which I’d just have to add what I’m going to be mounting up, with plenty of room for cabling and cable management… I’d say 138 USD is a pretty good overall price.

Their service promises turnaround of a few days, but I’m not going to place the order just yet. I’ll probably wait till later in the week if not till next payday.

In the mean time I’m going to be playing around with their software a bit more. I’ve got a couple other ideas in mind, and I’d like to see what kind of quotes I could get. Ordering multiple things at once could save on shipping.

Rack mount HDD enclosure

Rack mount HDD enclosure, part 4

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment
Build Log:

Time to admit defeat. Well, sort of.

Over the last couple weeks I’ve tried several options for mounting hard drives inside the rack mount enclosure I had purchased. And so far none of the options had really worked well. First, let’s look at the layout of the enclosure.

Recall that I was trying to work in the Bud Industries PRM-14462 enclosure, which is a 2Ux8″ plastic enclosure — there is a 1U and 3U option as well. If you look at the technical drawing for the enclosure, you’ll see that there are 4 posts in the middle of the enclosure with about 8½” between them. 3½” HDDs are 4″ wide.

I could have the HDDs mounted fairly close together, but the trouble was figuring out how. I bought acrylic sheet from my local Home Depot with the intent of trying to make HDD mounts from scratch, but trying to drill all of that by hand without a drill press (one of the downsides of living in an apartment) only proved frustrating. So I ultimately gave up on that mark.

By the way, if you’re wanting to drill holes through acrylic, get a glass-cutting bit. It works like a charm.

Another material I considered, and which probably would’ve worked well, was aluminum angle bar. But after trying to use acrylic to get want I wanted, I didn’t want to custom build something if it could be avoided.

With that in mind, I found a product from Agestar that intrigued me. I first saw it listed on ModDIY, but as out of stock, then found it listed on NewEgg as in stock. Thinking it would work like a charm, I ordered 4 sets, one for each HDD that’d be going into this. Things didn’t work out the way I’d hoped though as they wouldn’t fit within the vertical posts in the enclosure.

There was another problem with the enclosure that ultimately led me to believe what I had planned would not work.

3½” HDDs are not only 4″ wide, they’re 5¾” long. Subtract out about 1″ for the fans I’d be having in the front to draw in air, and that leaves only 1¼” of space for figuring out how to neatly route cables. The lack of SATA power connectors on the drives means I need to use splitters, which would take up a significant chunk of that leftover space, meaning cable management would be interesting, to say the least. Plus I’d need to run cables to the port multiplier and fans, along with the other cables coming off the power supply… it’d get messy quickly.

So what I need ultimately is just a deeper enclosure, preferably at 11″ or 12″. It still needs to be 2U depth, since everything else I’ve bought is for that configuration. The deeper enclosure, preferably one without vertical posts, should allow for a much better configuration of everything. The only trouble is finding one for a reasonable price, as most of the ones I’ve found are either too expensive or available only from an overseas supplier.

One company I am considering, though, is Protocase since they are here in the United States, namely New York, and I’m using their designer software to make an enclosure that will support 4x80mm fans in the front plus a 22mm anti-vandal switch. For the back, I’m not sure what I’m going to do there. I may stick to my original plans to leave it open with the exception of thin mesh, or I’ll see how much I’m quoted to have a proper back panel on it with ventilation holes.

Absinthe

Absinthe – Part XIX: Valentine’s Day

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment
Build Log:

The title almost makes this sound like some horrible romance/horror movie… Anyone know Neve Campbell’s phone number? I think she’d be perfect for the lead role… Anyway…

So here’s a question: what do you get a PC gamer girl for Valentine’s Day? In previous posts I talked about upgrading her graphics system, and I was originally thinking R9 290 or GTX 970. Then I saw a pretty good deal on NewEgg for an R9 290X “Double-D” from XFX:

20131220105936_R9-290X-EDF_1.jpg

Stay tuned.

Debt

More crap about debt collectors

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I wonder how many of those who write articles about debt collectors and collections have actually been through it. I have. It’s been about three years since I paid off and wrote off the last debt collector, so I know the territory. I’m pretty sure Ben DeMeter of Investopedia does not. He wrote an article back in 2012 (only just saw it recently) called “6 Ways to Keep Debt Collectors at Bay“, and it reads as if he’s discovered Superman’s secret weakness.

And one of his opening statements tells me he’s likely never been through collections: “Anyone who’s ever been in that position will tell you it’s somewhere they never want to be again in their lives.”

He’s right that it’s not someplace I want to be again. I’ve been through collections. I’ve been to Court. Of course in the future I’ll do whatever I can to avoid that. Unfortunately you may, like me, end up going through it out of circumstances not of your own making.

You have rights as an American citizen – rights that debt collection agencies cannot infringe upon no matter how much money you owe.

Yes you do have rights, but so does the debt collector. Here’s the thing: debt collectors are not government agents. They are out to collect what they are owed. But the rights you do have with regard to debt collections, the specific few there are under Federal law (and any applicable State laws) have a time limitation to them.

The other rights that come with debt collections aren’t rights exclusive to it. If you are being harassed, you have the right to tell them to stop, and seek redress through the Court or law enforcement if they refuse.

A debt collector can’t legally pursue you unless he or she gives you a written statement outlining your debt within five days of contacting you. You don’t have to say anything to him or her over the phone until that letter arrives. If the letter doesn’t arrive within five days, you could have grounds to sue him or her for harassment.

None of the collections agencies with whom I’ve had the wonderful experience of interacting ever called me. So there may never be an initial phone call, and not all debt collectors will attempt to call you. Instead what they’ll probably do is send you an initial notice in the mail, which can go out at any time, then try to call you if they don’t hear from you within a certain time frame after sending the notice.

Given how many collections accounts the agencies are likely managing today, initial contact attempts by phone are likely very uncommon.

And they are not obligated to attempt contact by phone first. Their initial contact may be by mail only, especially since they’ll likely include a settlement offer with it with a payment coupon to take immediate advantage of it. You’re not obligated to accept that offer and can negotiate, but, again, they are not obligated to call you first before sending notice by mail.

And to keep clocks from ticking against them, many likely will not, unless the account is for a small balance (i.e. $100 or less), for which payment may be arranged over the phone without any additional communication being necessary.

Third party collectors who buy your debt from your credit issuer are not. They’ll try to keep their identities a secret, because they know that the Fair Debt Collection Act gives you the power to demand, in writing, that they stop calling you.

Debt collections has kind of gained a reputation as being a shady, underground enterprise of assholes who do nothing but sit on the phone screaming at old ladies trying to shake them down for an unpaid hospital or doctor bill. While some collections agents and agencies may be like this, to paint the entire industry with such a wide brush is fallacious in the kindest terms.

Seriously there are so many sob stories about debt collections that I’m not sure what is believable and what isn’t. I’ve seen a range of them from the story of someone being taken through collections over $8.97, to widows and widowers being “harassed” over a debt account they didn’t realize their deceased spouse had, to threats of arrest and prosecution, and seizures of houses and cars.

By the way, the very latter is actually a legal maneuver a debt collector can take, though there are quite a few steps involved in doing so.

And the trend definitely reflects that the more you owe, the more aggressive debt collectors are likely to be, and they may end up crossing the line without really realizing it.

But yes you do have the power to tell them to stop calling you. So go ahead and send that cease and desist letter if you so desire, thinking that you’ve just given the debt collector the proverbial finger and that you won’t have to deal with them again.

Because what the author failed to mention is the potential consequence of sending that cease and desist letter. You may receive a knock at your door by a Court process server.

Don’t accept any of their payment plan offers when they call. Instead, offer to pay 10% to 15% of what you owe. Tell them you can’t afford any more, and stand firm if they don’t accept.

Again this guy seems completely unaware of the fact that a debt collector can and will sue you.

If you think you can offer to pay only 10% or 15% of what you owe, you’re borderline insane as I don’t know of any debt collector that will accept such an offer. Instead what they will likely do is consider any potential negotiations to be fruitless and take you to Court, in which case your argument about what you can afford is absolutely worthless.

Lawsuits open up a lot of different avenues for collections for the debt collector. But lawsuits also mean delays in getting any kind of money, but if what you’re offering could be considered certifiably insane, or if you refuse to work with them at all, you’ll find yourself on the business end of one.

As soon as your debt collector starts calling, record everything he or she says. When he or she calls, inform him or her that he or she is being monitored and start taping. When you make an agreement with him or her, get it in writing and keep the letter on file. Think of it as gathering evidence. If the collection agency ever crosses the line, you’ll have a strong enough case to take the agency to court. Sometimes, even a small clerical error is enough to get your debt completely erased. You can only win the battle if you’ve got enough bullets.

And DeMeter is definitely certifiably insane.

While you should record everything with regard to the debt — namely because the debt collector is likely doing the same — that’s about the only part of this paragraph that is accurate.

Small clerical errors are not going to get your debt completely erased, and if you try to bank on such an idea, you’ll find out how expensive it will be. Small errors are likely to be overlooked by the Court unless there is evidence of willful or intentional misconduct. The Court won’t erase the debt or bar enforcement of it because of a small clerical error. Yet it would not surprise me if there are a ton of people who think such.

If the collection agency ever crosses the line, yes you may have evidence for a suit or counter-suit. But that is only if you can demonstrate that they have acted in violation of the law. Small clerical errors don’t count. It needs to be something a bit bigger on the legal scale.

If a collection agency refuses to stop overstepping its bounds to contact you, then you should strongly consider contacting an attorney. If you’ve been recording evidence of after-hours calls and verbal harassment, you could be able to file a lawsuit. Who knows, you might even be able to clear your debts through a settlement.

Again, I wouldn’t bank on this.

Certainly if you think a debt collector is overstepping what is allowable by law, then you should contact an attorney. A settlement, though, is unlikely to clear out what you owe to them. In a lot of cases, what’ll probably happen is the debt collector will just cease collection attempts, but that does not mean the debt goes away as it’ll likely be placed with another collection agency, and the whole process starts anew.

* * * * *

Okay let’s get into the reality of debt collections and what your rights actually are.

First, if a debt collector contacts you by phone, they must identify themselves as a debt collector and must inform you they are calling with the purpose of collecting a debt. If you are contacted by phone by a debt collector, say this and hang up: “Put the details in writing and send it in the mail.”

From that initial phone call, the debt collector must send the details of the debt to you through the mail, and it must be postmarked on or before 5 days after that initial phone call.

After you receive that initial letter, you have a right called debt validation, but you have only 30 days to exercise it for its exercise to be legally binding. Validation means just what it says: the debt collector must verify the validity of the debt they are attempting to collect, and must provide evidence of that validity to you by mail. They do not have a time limit by which to do this, but they cannot continue to collect on the account until they have done so. For older accounts, this will likely end any collection attempts.

Provided all of these requirements are met, the debt collector is free to use whatever tools are at their disposal, within the bounds of applicable State and Federal laws, to collect the debt.

One of those tools DeMeter never mentions: they can sue you to collect the debt. That is a tool that is always at their disposal. If you tell them to stop contacting you, they will likely turn around and send you a letter saying, in short, “Okay we’ll stop contacting you. Instead we’ve filed a lawsuit.” Nothing in any applicable statute says they cannot. They will place the account with an attorney in your area and you will be served with papers.

And your options become limited once they initiate a lawsuit. And if you think you can just offer to settle for 10% or 15% of what you owe, you’d better read up on what options come available to the debt collector once they have a legally-binding judgment against you.

If you have evidence of misconduct on the part of the debt collector, you must counter-sue as that evidence has nothing to do with the validity of the debt itself, only the collector’s ability to enforce it. And unless your State has laws on its books mirroring the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, your lawsuit may have to be taken to the United States District Court that has jurisdiction. If the collection agency is in a different State, you may have file your lawsuit in that State.

Second Amendment

Gun owners for gun control

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

It seems to be a growing, if not now the majority pattern to articles discussing gun control: “I support gun control and I’m a gun owner”. Oh wait, except the term they’re trying to front now is “gun safety”…

What’s worse is when people who are retired military and a gun owner also speaking out in support of gun control. Here’s the thing: being a gun owner does not increase the validity (or lack thereof) of your arguments in favor of gun control (“gun safety”). I’m not sure what word describes someone who already owns [insert item here] wanting greater restriction on the ownership of [said item]. I don’t think it’s hypocrite.

The most recent example of this from my observation comes from New Hampshire. A retired USAF “noncom” (meaning non-commissioned officer) wrote an article for the Concord Monitor about gun control and the recent expansion of gun rights in New Hampshire to include the ability to carry a firearm concealed into the New Hampshire Capital complex.

And the article does not start out well: “I’ll probably be excoriated by the pro-gun community for this”. This is like many images appearing on Imgur with a caption saying “This’ll probably die in user-sub” (don’t concern yourself with what that means if you’re don’t already know), or comments that start out with “This will probably get lost in the comments”.

These statements are made with the hope that it doesn’t, and in this case, this retired NCO is likely hoping the same. But saying the equivalent of “I’ll probably get a response to this” (though he was saying “I’ll probably get attacked for this”) in the hopes it doesn’t happen tells me two things: you are either either not confident about your position, or you don’t know how to present your position coherently.

It also presents a kind of persecution complex, and I really hope anti-gunners aren’t going to start presenting themselves as a persecuted class. That would just be pathetic.

Moving on.

“[O]ur legislators have once again made us a national laughing stock by passing rules that permit them to carry concealed firearms in the halls of our legislative buildings”

Actually the rule permits anyone to carry a firearm concealed in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. But who’s laughing, out of curiosity?

Now while the likelihood is very low that there will be any kind of shooting occurring at a legislative building — just as the likelihood is very low of a shooting really anywhere — it has happened before.

Recall back in 1998 two Capitol Police officers were killed when a gunman walked into the United States Capitol and opened fire, wounding two others. The gunman in question was known to the Secret Service to be a person who made a threat toward the President of the United States. He has also yet to be tried due to being found incompetent to stand trial.

So while the potential for a shooting at New Hampshire capitol building is unlikely, I can understand a desire to carry within the building. Except, anyone with a valid permit already could carry within the building. It’s just within the House of Representatives that carry was not allowed until the recent rule change. So really I don’t see why he’s complaining.

I’ll get to that in a little bit, but first, let’s turn to his gloating about his history with firearms:

I’m a retired Air Force noncom who has been a target shooter for more than 50 years and have hunted large and small game both here and abroad. I’m a staunch advocate of responsible firearm ownership.

I was a card-carrying NRA member for more than 20 years until Wayne LaPierre turned it into a circus of bitter old men with axes to grind. I’ve owned numerous handguns, rifles and shotguns of every ilk, and I have held a permit to carry concealed for years.

Well I’m not a military veteran. I’ve owned firearms for a little over 4 years now, and have been carrying concealed for a little over two. I am not a member of the NRA and never have been a member, but I am a member of the United States Concealed Carry Association. My opinion on LaPierre is mixed as I’ve only listened to a few of his speeches and otherwise don’t really care about his opinion.

But I’m also a staunch advocate of responsible gun ownership. For example I wrote an article about my concealed carry class I took 6 days before Sandy Hook, and how it appeared most of the others in my class were not competent with their firearm of choice (and most of them seemed to have .22LR pistols as well).

Yes, I carry a concealed handgun quite frequently, but I have no problem relinquishing my pistol when entering a facility that requires it. If I’m entering a post office, hospital or other facility that prohibits weapons, it gets locked in a safe in my vehicle or left at home.

I carry every day, not just “frequently”. I also have no problem leaving my pistol locked in my car where law or policy requires it — even if I feel doing so is unwise, such as at Oak Park Mall in Overland Park, KS. Most recently I did that yesterday with my visit to the post office. Same at the hospital where my wife’s orthopedist practices, and at the medical building with my wife’s physician and endocrinologist practice.

It’s simply a matter of the fact that the law requires this. Carrying a firearm into a Federal facility1As defined at 18 USC § 930(g)(1), including post offices, is a Federal misdemeanor218 USC § 930(a), unless that facility is a court facility3As defined at 18 USC § 930(g)(3), in which case it becomes a felony418 USC § 930(e)(1). Here in Missouri, carrying into a building with a posted “no firearms allowed” sign is not a crime, but can subject the person to removal from the premises5RSMO 571.107(2). Same with Kansas6KSA 2014 Supp. 75-7c10(e)(1). Failure to remove yourself from the premises could result in an “armed trespass” charge or something similar, which tend to be treated as aggravated misdemeanors.

So if you’re trying to present yourself as a “reasonable gun owner” by the fact you’re doing what the law requires, you’re not “reasonable” but arrogant. You’re also law-abiding, so congratulations.

Since my retirement from the military, I’ve never had an employer who permitted firearms on the job, and I respected that premise as a condition of employment.

There aren’t many employers that do allow employees to carry while on the job, and the ones that do tend to require it instead of just allow it — such as armored car drivers and some security details, along with, of course, law enforcement. My employer requires that I have my weapon properly secured in my vehicle and that I cannot have it on my person while I’m in the building. We also have armed security on the site, so I’m not hugely concerned.

You also have no choice but to respect their weapons policies if you want to stay employed. Again if you’re trying to present yourself as more “reasonable” because you respected that policy, again you’re really presenting yourself as more arrogant.

Now here we have a bunch of so-called pillars of our society who feel they can’t get the job done as legislators unless they’re armed to the teeth.

So carrying one pistol, likely without any spare magazines or speed loaders (in the case of revolvers), is “armed to the teeth”? Have you lost your mind, or are you succumbing to the over-the-top rhetoric coming out of gun control organizations like Bloomberg’s crowd?

What do they fear? We have yet to have any incidents in the House or Senate that would justify their “need.” What kind of message does this send to the school children who frequently visit the chambers?

Again, see my example quoted above of the 1998 incident at the United States Capitol. While no legislators were harmed in that incident, it does establish the possibility of an attack on a legislative building or office. But again, the rule isn’t limited to just legislators, and merely opened up the legislative chamber since previously that was the only part of the New Hampshire capital complex where you could not carry concealed.

His next couple paragraphs are about the kind of fear mongering I see out of gun control supporters who own guns and can basically be summarized his opening question: “Have they had proper safety and marksmanship training?” The answer to this is quite obvious: they have had safety and marksmanship training to the degree necessary to obtain a concealed carry permit. This retired NCO seems to think this rule means anyone can carry concealed, instead of just those with a permit.

The rule in question in the New Hampshire House of Representatives is House Rule 63, which currently states:7New Hampshire House of Representatives legislative journal for 2015, January 2, page 2

No person, including members of the House, except law enforcement officers while actively engaged in carrying out their duties as such, shall display any deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V while in the House Chamber, anterooms, cloakrooms, or House gallery.

It should be noted that the New Hampshire Senate has no such restriction in its rules that I could tell — if I’m overlooking it somehow, someone please point it out — and there is no law in New Hampshire restricting the carry of firearms except with regard to courthouses (for what should be obvious reasons). Federal laws still apply, obviously.

But this rule doesn’t abrogate the standing laws regarding concealed carry in New Hampshire, meaning the permit is still required, and all persons seeking a permit must follow the same process, including legislators.

If you’re uncomfortable with the level of marksmanship competence that must be displayed to obtain a concealed carry permit in the State of New Hampshire, then work to change that as opposed to restricting where all persons who have qualified can carry. Personally I’d like to see a marksmanship certification required for renewal of a concealed carry permit.

Beyond this, he goes into a ton of speculation that really makes me question his mental faculties, including “Perhaps the politicians are afraid someone will take offense at some of the wacky antics we’ve seen in the Legislature of late, and perhaps justifiably so.”

And then there’s his concluding paragraph:

Another related issue is the movement to eliminate the need for concealed carry permits. These permits are intended to provide local law enforcement with a tool to winnow out the potential crazies who may not yet have reached the status of felon or other person of questionable character. New Hampshire’s small towns provide their police chiefs the luxury of knowing most, if not all, of their constituents, and being able to deny permits for cause. I sleep better knowing there’s at least one level of control in place. I know of several shady local individuals that should be denied permits to carry. Let’s keep that local control.

I wonder of this person is aware of the fact that New Hampshire issues permits to persons not living in New Hampshire — and they’re not the only State to do so — along with providing full reciprocity to States that honor their permits. So that basically means I can carry my pistol concealed in New Hampshire without the need for a non-resident permit.

The application requires providing the names and mailing addresses of three references, the name and address of your current employer, repeats several questions found on the ATF form 4473, and asks that you declare a reason for the application — though “self defense” is considered a proper reason. And the law requires the applicant be a “suitable person to be licensed”, so this must be the “local control” he is alluding to.

But his statements otherwise parallel the statements commonly made whenever discussing making it easier to own and acquire firearms — i.e. it’s just fear mongering.

References[+]

Concealed carry/Crime

Aurora and concealed carry

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

With the upcoming trial of James Holmes looming around the corner, the Second Amendment is once again being discussed. And it’s the Aurora theatre shooting that tends to divide people with regard to concealed carry. In short, those against expanding firearms rights in the US tend to say that the Aurora shooting would’ve been a “hail of gunfire” if there were people carrying concealed in that theatre on that fateful night.

And anyone who knows how these situations tend to play out know that is not true in the least.

Sure there would’ve been a small handful of people who would’ve tried to put shots on Holmes. But let’s assume everyone in the theatre was of lawful age and capacity for carrying a firearm. We’re talking a lot of people. And let’s assume they were all armed.

To assume that everyone would start trying to open fire on Holmes is absurd.

First, most people who are licensed or permitted to carry concealed don’t have any kind of training for those kind of scenarios — or for really any scenario. They are not mentally prepared to defend others, let alone themselves, in such a chaotic situation. As such, the outcome would likely have not been much different, with many attempting to flee and many not being able to do so.

Further, the chaos that erupted when the shooting started would’ve made any counter response difficult to initiate had anyone been armed.

The one word that most people seem to forget when it comes to talking about concealed carry is ambush. Another concept comes to mind that applies: “fish in a barrel”.

Play any online FPS and watch for a situation where a person is ambushed and watch how they react. We’re talking someone with the capability to return fire who, very likely, does not have the opportunity to do so. There are also ambush situations where the player is able to return fire and the person who attempted the ambush is the one killed. You might get lucky, or you might not. It all depends on the variables.

The police are often nowhere nearby as well. Adam Lanza was active in Sandy Hook for approximately 5 minutes before he took his own life. James Holmes had approximately 7 minutes.

In the former, police showed up 3 minutes after the dispatcher’s initial broadcast. In the latter, it was 90 seconds. A lot can happen in that time. A lot did happen in what to most seems like a short amount of time. The police could not save the souls at either Aurora or Sandy Hook — yet the anti-gun rights crowd pushes for reliance on the unreliable.

This isn’t about owning a rifle with 30-round magazines for sport shooting. This is about life and death scenarios.

A person carrying a weapon concealed can still be ambushed. Yet the language of the anti-gun rights crowd seems to be that the mere existence of the ambush concept means concealed carry is worthless and should not be allowed. I wrote such not long after the Sandy Hook massacre:

Yet many seem to think that if anyone dies in a situation arrested by a person carrying a concealed weapon, that if that CCW person could not prevent all of the deaths in a situation, then that person is little better than useless. Talk about a high bar to reach. And I think that’s the point.

But if a lawfully carrying person had violated the “gun free zone” of that public school and stopped things such that 19 children died instead of 20, I think everyone would agree that even saving that one life would still be a win, especially when we’re talking about children. One need not save all lives to justify using a firearm to put a stop to such a situation. After all, lawfully permitted carriers of concealed weapons are not superheroes, and to expect us to be superheroes, saving everyone facing peril and near-certain death, is beyond unfair. They can, however, be the first responders and arrest a bad situation while the police are on their way. After all the sooner someone responds to the situation in the proper manner, the quicker a bad situation is interrupted on its way to being a worse situation. And a person best able to respond to a mass shooter is a person already in the vicinity, and that person need not be a law enforcement officer.

There is an agenda to be followed, and so long as the agenda does not personally impact them, they’re fine. The person who doesn’t own guns doesn’t mind seeing gun rights restricted. The person who owns guns and does not plan to purchase any more likely also will not have a problem with seeing gun rights restricted, so long as he isn’t going to lose what he already has.And to that end they will twist words and make absurd arguments.

Health care/Law/Supreme Court

An exchange established by the state

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

In the currently-pending case of King v. Burwell before the Supreme Court of the United States, many keep misconstruing the portion of the bill that is up for debate: “an exchange established by the state”. Here’s the full sentence of the section in question — 26 USC § 36B(2)(A) [emphasis mine]:

The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of— the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act…

Nothing here about Healthcare.gov.

In the second emphasized section, you see those two words after “State”, where it mentions “1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”? Section 1311 is now referenced as 42 USC § 18031. If you read through the section, it’s entirely about the individual States setting up exchanges and the qualifications they need to meet.

Subsection (a) of the section talks about financial assistance to the States to establish exchanges. Subsection (b)(1) says “Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish and American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an ‘Exchange’) for the State”.

Again, it’s talking about State exchanges, not Healthcare.gov. In fact, nowhere in the section 18031 will you find anything about an exchange established by the Department of Health and Human Services. The entire section is about exchanges established by the individual States. Nor does it reference any section talking about Healthcare.gov.

So why are so many liberals misconstruing the argument regarding the IRS rule to just the 6 words? To get what they want. And to that end, many have referred to the Supreme Court as a “death panel” if they rule against the IRS rule, while many have said this will determine whether the Court still has any integrity — meaning it still has integrity if they rule the way they want them to rule. Seriously there is no end to the insanity on the left with regard to this — probably because they see this case as having decent likelihood of sinking their precious health care law.

A plain reading of the language of the section in question shows that subsidies cannot be extended to plans offered through Healthcare.gov. The failure to include Healthcare.gov plans was either an oversight, or it was intentional. Either way it renders void the IRS rule extending subsidies to plans purchased through Healthcare.gov.

And hopefully the Supreme Court will rule in that direction, upholding the language of the law as it is written and not trying to read beyond it to some unspecified “intent”, as many have claimed they should do. “Well Congress intended to extend the subsidies, so they should defer to that intent.”

And if the Supreme Court allows it in this one instance, it sets up a major slippery slope. The language of the law does not authorize the IRS rule, and that is how the Court should decide in this case.

Full language of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act can be found here.

Technology

Open source “efficiency”

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Jack Wallen is at it again, trying to talk about what he doesn’t know. For some reason, in trumpeting his support for open source software, he like to act like he knows how software is written and released. And in his latest article regarding the recently-publicized GHOST vulnerability, he oversteps the boundaries of his knowledge by a large margin and makes a lot of statements that show clearly he has no idea how software is written and released (yet TechRepublic for some reason allows him to publish his tripe), he also has a major bias against “proprietary software”.

Within moments of the flaws discovery, it was revealed which versions were safe, and patches were on the way.

Moments? You and I have a different idea of what “moments” means.

The vulnerability in question is identified as CVE-2015-0235. How quickly did Qualys discover the flaw, and then discover in which version the vulnerability no longer existed? Given the extent of the research published in their own bulletin on the vulnerability, it certainly wasn’t “moments”. That took *a lot* of effort, and it was only at the end of it they made word of the vulnerability public. The entry for the vulnerability report was created in mid-November, meaning the security flaw was first identified around that time.

The second the patches are rolled into libc6, they’ll be released without hesitation, and systems will once again be safe.

Released without hesitation? You need to look at the release history for glibc6. They go *months* between releases. They just happened to get lucky in that this flaw was already patched unwittingly by another developer, likely while going after something else.

There’s very little bureaucracy in the way of releasing major bug fixes — it just happens and happens with an efficiency no proprietary software can match.

No proprietary software can match it? Here’s a suggestion, Jack: when thinking of “proprietary software”, stop thinking of only companies like Microsoft.

“Proprietary software” is written by large and small companies alike. In my previous job, there were times we went from phone call to released patch within hours — and that’s with a closed-source, proprietary project. I write closed source software in my spare time, and there’ve been several times I’ve released a patch to a bug the same day it’s been reported, sometimes also within hours.

Open source is no different in how bugs and security holes are found and patched than closed source applications. Even the release process really isn’t much different. Unfortunately in some industries, the release process is hampered by laws and regulations, and if an open source application is targeted toward those particular industries, they must also comply with those regulations.

Here’s how it actually works.

Once a bug is reported, it needs to be investigated to be confirmed to exist — given the extent of Qualys’s report on the issue, they were extensive in their investigation. Once confirmed, code is patched, but it’s not necessarily as quick a process as you imply. A candidate fix for the bug needs to be thoroughly tested to ensure it will (hopefully) not introduce new issues — this is going to be especially true in libraries with a lot of consumers, such as glibc. Unit testing can help in this instance, but it’s not perfect.

And bugs and security flaws vary on how easily they can be patched. Larger code bases are likely going to be more difficult to patch, depending on the flaw, where it exists within the code base, and the consumers of that code. What on the surface might seem like a simple fix may require some re-engineering to completely resolve, something I’ve had to do a few times.

Again closed source vendors can also have patches out just as fast and how fast a patch is rolled out has nothing to do with whether it is open or closed source.

And with larger projects, it often makes more sense for periodic service releases than it is to constantly release incremental versions with small changes. Again, looking at the release dates for glibc, they go *months* between releases. The tags in their Git repository also reflect going months between releases. My employer, to contrast, rolls out service releases every month on a set schedule.

Beta Orionis

Beta Orionis – Part XVI: Overclocking the GPUs (or not)

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Build Log:

Since I last wrote an update on this build, I’ve put the Watercool GPU-X³ blocks back on the graphics cards as originally discussed. I’ll probably be putting the Koolance blocks up for sale on eBay as well after I flush them out.

So since part of the point of water cooling is to overclock your components, I started with the graphics cards. For initial reference, these cards are PNY GTX 770s. They come from PNY already overclocked from the base, and I said in an earlier article that I believe one of my two cards is actually a mislabeled OC2 version of the card. For reference here are the default specifications, compared to the base GTX 770 specifications:

On both PNY cards, the memory is not overclocked, remaining at an effective 7010 MHz.

For the adjustments, I used EVGA’s PrecisionX 16 utility. For stability testing, I used FurMark. One thing I will say is that the FurMark benchmark routine — i.e. the furry doughnut — makes it quite easy to tell when the adjustments result in artifacts.

The higher stock clocks for the cards meant that I could not actually boost the core speed much higher. Basically at a +40 MHz adjustment, the system locked up — as in “press the reset button” locked up. Basically what I have is as good as it can get without touching voltages, and I’m not going to adjust voltages. For one adjusting the voltages will reduce the lifespan of the card while not resulting in much improvement in overclocks.

I was able to achieve a 800 MHz boost on the memory clock (+400 MHz adjustment in PrecisionX), getting it up to an effective 7810 MHz.

The difference in benchmarks, though, isn’t all that impressive. In FurMark, the score went from 5893 at default clocks to 6217 overclocked, which sounds impressive. In Unigine Valley, though, the benchmarks were at 2940 at stock, 2994 overclocked, so a negligible difference. In Unigine Heaven, the benchmarks were at 1792 at stock, 1860 overclocked, also negligible. And the difference in frame rates noted in each of the tools was also negligible.

This is not surprising as the core clock matters more than memory speed for overclocking. And as PNY has apparently binned decent GTX 770 processors for their cards, and taken advantage of that by providing them overclocked from the factory, it’s not really much of a surprise I wasn’t able to get much better.

In an overclock of the GTX 770 published by AnandTech, they achieved GPU clock speeds similar to the GTX 770 OC2 from PNY, but with a slightly higher memory clock than what I achieved, and they even point out that the change in base clock made up the bulk of the improvement in their performance markers.

So unfortunately that didn’t go as well as I’d hoped, but that’s fine. The cards can handle the games currently in my library without any problem, and I see no reason why that won’t remain the case for at least a couple years.

I’ll look at bumping the CPU at a later time. Previously I mentioned getting a 300 MHz overclock on the CPU, but that was on the Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 (Rev. 4) mainboard. I’ve since switched to the ASRock 990FX Extreme6 mainboard, so we’ll see what I can achieve on it.