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.

Firearms and Ammunition/Product and service reviews

Alien Gear holsters

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

When I started carrying concealed, I originally carried a Taurus PT917C in a Crossbreed Holsters holster. Crossbreed, like most other manufacturers, make hybrid holsters that are little more than a scabbard bolted onto a piece of leather with clips to hold it to your belt. Not exactly the greatest thing in the world.

When I started carrying a Glock 19, I didn’t go with Crossbreed or White Hat to find a holster. Instead, I went with Comp-Tac and the MTAC holster. It was a bit more expensive, but it featured a full-length scabbard, and one feature I really liked about it is the fact the back of the holster completely covers any hardware. It was still a scabbard bolted to leather, but it wasn’t just a scabbard bolted to leather like the holsters you get from Crossbreed, White Hat and Galco.

Now about a month ago I discovered the scabbard broke — a clean split down one of the curves in the plastic. Because your belt is what provides the retention on the firearm, this wasn’t a huge problem, but not something I wanted to leave for long. Unfortunately replacing the scabbard would cost around $40. So I decided to look around at other options.

As a member of the United States Concealed Carry Association, I’d seen Alien Gear advertised quite a bit. They’ve also shown up as sponsored ads in my Facebook feed. So I decided to check them out.

AGH_leather_16-9

Their latest model is the Cloak Tuck 2.0. Like the MTAC, it is a full-cover scabbard (at least for the Glock 19), but otherwise has a design similar to what you’d find from Crossbreed, White Hat or Galco. The exception here, though, is it’s called a “Neoprene Composite Holster”. And this is probably the only idea behind the Cloak Tuk that sets it apart from the competition. Let’s face it, the design of the holster is virtually identical to almost everything else out there. But it’s also a lot less expensive than virtually everything else out there.

In fact the Cloak Tuck 2.0 cost less than a replacement scabbard for the MTAC, which convinced me to check it out. I had to wait 2 weeks from order before it was shipped, whereas I was able to order the MTAC pre-made from a reseller.

And like N8², Alien Gear is claiming to have the most comfortable holster on the market. And they back it up with a 30-day full refund policy, along with a lifetime warranty. Unlike the N8² holster, though, the Alien Gear has a replaceable scabbard, and is also about half the price.

But how does it stack up? Again I’ve had mine for about two weeks now.

First, the holster uses 3/32 hex-head screws to hold everything together, which is great as hex-head screws won’t eat into your clothing the way Phillips-head screws can. The screws on my Crossbreed holster ate a hole through my jeans. For the price Crossbreed charges, almost $70 for the Supertuck Deluxe, they could’ve gone the extra mile and used hex head screws.

On my Alien Gear holster, one of the belt clip screws actually came completely loose while another had loosened but not completely. I noticed this when I saw the green spacer laying on the floor in my living room as it had fallen through my pant leg. A couple days later, I had to tighten that screw down again. I’m not sure why that is happening, and I hope it won’t continue to be a problem. This is not something I’d noticed on either the Crossbreed or MTAC.

Now the spacers on the holster are green, but they do include a set of black spacers if you want to replace them. Around the scabbard, you can tighten or loosen these to adjust the retention on the gun — remember that your belt should actually provide the retention more than the holster.

The draw is completely contrary to what I’ve typically seen from holsters. About the best way to describe it is to say the draw from the Crossbreed and MTAC holsters requires more effort than holstering. The Alien Gear holster is the other way around. The draw is virtually effortless, almost like the holster is pushing the gun out of your holster as you draw it, while holstering requires a bit of effort to completely seat the firearm. You still have to put some initial force behind drawing the gun, but it is a much easier draw than the Crossbreed and MTAC.

Let’s talk about comfort. This holster isn’t really anything special. Against bare skin, the neoprene does feel different than leather, and it took a little bit to get used to. Now is it the “most comfortable” holster I’ve owned? So far, yes. The Crossbreed was, by far, the worst of the ones I’ve so far owned. The MTAC was certainly leaps and bounds better than Crossbreed, and while the Alien Gear feels better than the MTAC, I wouldn’t call it a significant difference.

Aside from the screws coming loose easily, my only complaint about the Cloak Tuk is the exposed hardware on the back. This was one thing about the MTAC that I liked, and I’d ask that Alien Gear look at changing their design to cover the mounting hardware on the back of the holster. I’d also ask that they investigate the problem with the belt screws coming loose to see if there is something that might need changed to keep that from occurring — I shouldn’t have to put Loctite on the screws for my holster to keep things together.

At only $36 plus shipping, though, it’s one hell of a value for a holster. Crossbreed, Galco, and White Hat currently charge near $70 for their holsters (looking at ones for a Glock 19), though White Hat does have the BaseMax for $55. The MTAC is $90+ depending on where you find it. N82 charges $70 for the Professional series, and $40 for the “Original” series holsters.

If you’re shopping for a concealed carry holster, I suggest checking them out. They also have a 2-holster combo special going on.

So let’s summarize.

Pros:

  • Very inexpensive, priced much lower than competing hybrid holsters
  • More comfortable than others I’ve owned
  • Smooth and near-effortless draw
  • Replaceable scabbard — if you change your carry weapon, they’ll also exchange it
  • Lifetime “forever” warranty

Cons:

  • Exposed hardware on back (corrected with Cloak Tuck 3.0)
  • Screws for belt clip came loose seemingly relatively easily

(Alien Gear image is resized from a wallpaper they have available for download and is used under “Fair Use” in accordance 17 USC § 107 for the purposes of commentary and criticism.)

Rack mount HDD enclosure

Rack mount HDD enclosure, part 3

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Build Log:

It’s never good when a company that has so much praise among computer builders screws up your first order from them.

This time, the culprit is CaseLabs. That’s right. CaseLabs. The CaseLabs. The company making cases featured in builds that have caused our eyes to bleed with envy.

And I wasn’t even ordering a case, but a case component. I ordered two of item MAC-361, which is a mounting bracket for two 3.5″ hard drives. What they sent me was two of item MAC-362, which is a mounting bracket for 4 SSDs.

So that basically means that all of the highly-praised companies from which I’ve ordered have gotten an order wrong at least once. FrozenCPU. Performance-PCs. Mountain Mods — okay they just screwed up how it was shipped and refunded me the difference, but got the items themselves right.

And now CaseLabs is starting out 0 for 1.

In all instances where orders have been wrong, it’s typically been because of similar item numbers. But in all seriousness, how hard is it to double check that what you’re about to send out is correct for the order? I don’t know how many people at CaseLabs sign off on an order before it is shipped — the packing slip doesn’t give any indication — but this has happened even at FrozenCPU and Performance-PCs where multiple people sign off on an order before it ships. Hell there was that hilarious order when FrozenCPU sent me 5 backplates for 2 GPU blocks.

And who particularly at CaseLabs looked at my order, saw it was for a dual HDD mounting bracket, looked at the quad-SSD mounting bracket and thought “Yeah, that’s the right item”?

Okay, rant over. I’ve contacted CaseLabs about this and hopefully they will alleviate the discrepancy via 2-day shipping or better.

Otherwise, yeah I’m pissed. It means delays and extra expense very time something like this happens.

If CaseLabs had gotten this order right, I would have needed only a bunch of 60mm fans and a Flex ATX power supply to finish this project — or at make something that functions how I’d want. Now instead I need to wait for them to send the correct mounting brackets, as the internals of the enclosure depend heavily on how those are placed.

Follow-up — Jan 24:

As mentioned, I e-mailed CaseLabs about the concern. Unfortunately they didn’t receive my original e-mail — I suspect the attachment caused it to be filtered out — but replied to my follow-up e-mail on Friday, Jan 23. That same day, they sent out a package via FedEx 2-day that should also contain a return shipping label for sending back in the SSD bracket they mistakenly sent me.

Rack mount server

Rack mount server project

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Build Log:

Materials and components:

Yes this is a server being built from older hardware. My wife’s been bugging me about building her a server, so I decided to go this route. Initially I built this into a Logisys 4802 4U server chassis, which was almost 2′ long, but decided that wasn’t going to really work well. For one this was going to be mounted into a short rack cabinet, so a 2′ long case just wasn’t going to do. Plus with a full-ATX power supply, it was heavy. Now this still isn’t exactly light, but it’s a hell of a lot lighter than what was built into the Logisys case.

And building into this small of a case was certainly frustrating.

I went with this case simply because it can support a full ATX mainboard, as it was only full ATX mainboards I had laying around. I still have several of them actually — one holding an old Athlon XP chip, another with a Celeron 800MHz processor, another with an Athlon 64, and one more with another Athlon X2 (3800+, I believe). So building a rack mount server seemed the best way to put some of that hold hardware to use.

And given I’m considering trying to build a cabinet from an IKEA kitchen cabinet, I might have a use for the Logisys case after all. Or I might go small form-factor again.

Modularity is one of the great things about the PlinkUSA chassis. There are three drive mount brackets: two for 3.5″ drives, and another for 5.25″ drives/devices, all of which are removable. It also comes with a fan controller with a temperature sensor. It also provides plenty of screws as well, which is good because the heads seem to strip easily — one of the things I hate about Phillips head screws.

Unfortunately the 5.25″ bracket interfered with the mainboard. I considered removing it entirely, but since the chassis comes with just 2x60mm fans pre-installed, I wanted to retain the 5.25″ bay for additional fans. Cue the tin snips.

DSC_0190

In the end I had to take the cut entirely above the screw mount to ensure there was room for the FPIO connectors. This isn’t going to be supporting 5.25″ devices, so needing to cut away at this wasn’t a huge deal. And my tin snips were able to cut through this without a problem.

I purchased two 60mm fans from Micro Center to mount to this. Unfortunately the front mesh doesn’t line up with really anything available. So instead of trying to find something online, I decided to improvise. Plus the only fan mounts for 2 drive bays I could find would be for a single 80mm fan, though mounts for 40mm fans into a single drive bay are available.

DSC_0188

DSC_0189

Zip ties and washers. Sometimes you just need to go with it. And it works fine, as after mounting these up I plugged them into a spare power supply to test.

I’m unsure what metal washers I used, as they were just some spares I had lying around. But there are also 00 rubber washers and a 60mm Lamptron fan gasket as well holding the fan against this. The fans are the Evercool AL6025. And it’s a good thing they’ll be connected to a fan controller as these fans are loud at full speed. If they become annoying, I might change them to NoiseBlocker 60mm fans. But as this server shouldn’t be getting used for anything really intense, I don’t foresee it being a problem.

This is especially true because finding a low profile cooler was interesting. Thankfully I got lucky at Micro Center and didn’t have to order one online. The one I selected is the ThermalTake CL-P0503, which is made for the AM2 socket. It’s certainly a lower profile than the stock cooler that comes with the Athlon X2, and I’d certainly prefer a lower profile still, but this was a readily available option, and it was only $7.

DSC_0192

Now my only concern with this server build is just the power supply. It’s only 250W, so I think it’ll be good enough for all of this. The graphics card is my only concern with it, but as the graphics card isn’t going to be seeing any major action, it should still be fine. Micro Center carries Flex ATX power supplies, though, so if I feel I need to bump it up, I have a local option.

DSC_0195

So that’s it for this project. It’ll be mounted into another rack mount cabinet I’ll be building from the IKEA RAST nightstand, where it’ll reside until I build a rack cabinet for the entertainment center. But it won’t get fired up until I build that cabinet, which will happen when another rack mount surge suppressor arrives this week.

DSC_0197

Absinthe

Absinthe – Part XVIII

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Build Log:

And here we are to the 18th part of this build log for Absinthe. There’s not much of an update on this one, though — just some more pictures of the build, plus a couple minor things, so let’s get into this.

First, I’ve been messing with rack mount lately, and I recently built a 6U rack mount cabinet from an IKEA RAST night stand. I decided to put that up on my wife’s desk with the network switch and surge suppressor I also purchased to go with it — her desk is nearest the router, and the switch has always been on her desk. This allowed for a good reorganization of the cabling around her system while also putting another AC outlet within reach for a USB charger.

Beyond that, the only change to her system was installing another fan using a 3-bay fan mount from Mountain Mods. This time I went with the aluminum version with a DEMCiflex filter over it. I had originally ordered an acrylic version of it, but it cracked while I was trying to make the necessary cuts for it to fit into the 750D. The aluminum one can be cut with just tin snips.

Unfortunately the aluminum one is also cut differently and sits deeper into the drive bays than the acrylic version, meaning getting the ferrous strips placed for it was a little difficult. I’ll look for something to fill in the gap later. The filter’s placed and doing its job, so I’m not all that concerned at this point.

One other thing I forgot to mention in the previous entry to the log is the sound card. The red LEDs on the SoundBlaster Z sound card is easily dispatched. Just remove the cover — just 4 screws — and take snips to the LEDs. That’s it. You are likely voiding your warranty doing this, but it gets rid of an annoying light and is, in my opinion, a much better solution to just wrapping it in tape.

So that’s it for now. There is a graphics upgrade planned for this down the line — upgrading her GTX 660s to, likely, a GTX 970, possibly two. I’m also considering an R9 290 or 290X. The only thing turning me off with regard to those cards is just how hot they run and how much power they consume. But VisionTek puts one out with a water block pre-installed for less than what it’d cost to buy a GTX 970 and water block separately.

But I think ultimately it’ll be the GTX 970 in the end. We’ll see. For now, enjoy some new pictures of the build, without the annoying red light.

DSC_0180

DSC_0184

DSC_0186

Free speech and press

Misconstruing free speech, revisited – Andrew Shirvell

Posted on by Kenneth Ballard / 0 Comment

Andrew Shirvell was an assistant attorney general in the state of Michigan. He helped the execution of a campaign against an openly-gay student at the University of Michigan. His role in that campaign led to his termination, and a Court recently ruled he is not entitled to unemployment benefits.

The reason is quite simple: being terminated for cause does not entitle you to unemployment benefits.

Now Shirvell wasn’t fired simply for his speech. He was fired for numerous violations of official policies and misuse of state resources. He even went so far as to contact the student’s employer, who happened to be then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and also engaging in other forms of harassing behavior toward the student.

So clearly he wasn’t fired just for his speech, but he was certainly trying to make it sound like that was the case. Even if it was the case, it still doesn’t save him from termination.

Let me reiterate: your speech is not immune from consequence. I’ve written on this before back during the fallout when one of the more vocal members of the Robertson clan was let go from Duck Dynasty and everyone tried to make it sound like the entirety of the First Amendment had been repealed by A&E with that singular action.

For example, I don’t write about health care much, and when I do, I must be careful about what I write. Whenever an article comes up about a hospital or clinic, I always double-check whether said hospital or clinic is one of my employer’s clients or prospects before sharing it or writing an opinion on it. Any articles I come across that pertain to my employer or call out my employer directly I do not share, even if the article is positive.

If I speak negatively about one of my employer’s clients, or about my employer, I could be fired for cause or forced to resign — the latter of which would still entitle me to certain benefits under my employer’s policies — and nothing in the law would protect me from that. And I would not be entitled to unemployment benefits should that occur, even if what I write occurs during my off-hours on my own computer.

For example, if I was employed by British Petroleum at the time of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and I liked or shared an opinion piece decrying BP as destroying the environment, I could be fired for that because what I would be liking and/or sharing is intentionally disparaging of BP, and my action could rightly be interpreted as disparaging my employer.

The problem becomes even more acute when we’re talking about a government official. A police officer once said to me that there is no difference between an off-duty and on-duty officer. They are still a police officer. As such there is also no difference between an off-hours and on-hours prosecutor, or an off-hours and on-hours attorney. With many professions, clocking out doesn’t separate you from your job. Clocking out doesn’t mean that you can suddenly do and/or say whatever you want and your employer cannot touch you. If what you do or say during your off-hours reflects poorly upon your employer, you’re not immune from consequence.

And again, being a government official makes it very difficult to separate yourself from your job. Anything a government official does during what they might consider their “off hours” could reflect poorly on the office that employs them. And the same could hold true for other professions as well.

It is why a common tactic of online aggressors is to discover the employer of one of their targets and contact them, in an attempt to get them fired. As an example of that, the information for the individual behind the (currently offline) Tumblr blog Plebcomics was published online, including employer information, and that person was fired from their job. It’s one of the reasons I’m often hesitant to engage certain topics on this blog. Sure I shouldn’t let fear drive me away from engaging or discussing certain topics, but the fear of losing your livelihood can still be a powerful motivator.

Again it is why I do not discuss my employer or my employer’s clients on this blog, and even with regard to health care I am careful about what I write. Because the law only protects you from prosecution for what you write, but not from being fired for it unless what you are writing falls under certain protected classifications under Federal law.

And executing a campaign targeting one specific, openly-gay student is not religious expression, especially when coupled with other behavior that any reasonable person would call harassment.