So quite a while ago now, another mass shooting took place in a school in the USA; it’s gotten to the point where it is easy to get confused about which mass shooting is being talked about. Thus the “Film at 11” comment (which is hacker slang, for same old stuff).
The world is in a poor state when someone can get confused about which mass shooting is being discussed, or that implying that school children being killed is somehow boring.
US politicians did their usual thing – offering thoughts and prayers whilst assuring their NRA “supporters” (owners) that nothing would be done.
The difference this time, is that the victims have decided that they are not going to accept the status quo that nothing will be done about the rampant gun violence in the USA. They have set up a campaign organisation (NeverAgainMSD), and are actively campaigning for gun control.
Much to the consternation of the senile old farts in power.
It seems that these young people are not going to accept the status quo, or kow-tow to the inane stupidity of the US political elite when it comes to any “action” on gun control. Today gun control in the USA seems impossible; tomorrow it seems to be inevitable (much as us old farts hate it, the young will inherit the earth).
I have a certain level of sympathy with those who like playing with guns in a sensible way – and that is probably a majority of those who own guns. I would personally find it quite fun – I certainly enjoy putting arrows into a target. But a slim majority of people in the US want stronger gun control, and that level is increasing over time.
Rather than simply deny any possibility of gun control, it would probably make the most sense to look at forms of gun control that would leave the maximum amount of freedom (and perhaps even get additional freedom) whilst satisfying those who want to prevent mass shootings.
Obviously looking at mental health here is a good idea. Hell, it’s a good idea even ignoring the whole gun issue – people with untreated mental illnesses are likely to be more problematic to society that people with treated mental illnesses.
But in terms of gun control, what is wanted is a means to control the usage of guns; you want to make it difficult for a lone gun nut to take a gun into a crowded environment to carry out a mass shooting. One obvious way to do this is to make guns more difficult to obtain; and that’s a valid method.
Another way is to make it difficult to use guns without supervision. Imagine if you will that the only way to use a semi-automatic rifle is to go to a gun range, check it out of a locker, and use it at the gun range. Or if you want to take a high-powered rifle out hunting, you have to check it out of a community gun safe as part of a group (i.e. no hunting alone).
Sounds horrendous? It might just be better than not being able to play with your toys at all.
And yes I said toys. You could make a reasonable argument that reasonable hand-guns or reasonable shotguns can be used for self-defence in the home, but semi-automatic weapons are either toys or aimed at mass-shootings. And hunting is an entertainment too.
Some time ago, I wrote about using new (for the time) partition tables to create a memory stick with 100 partitions; each with a mountable file system on. And decided the time was right to have another look to see if things have improved … or degraded. After all, things have moved on, and everything has been updated.
I also improved the creation script slightly :-
#!/bin/zsh disk=/dev/sdb parted $disk mklabel gpt for x in {1..99} do echo Partition: $x parted -s $disk mkpart FAT $(($x * 100)) $((x * 100 + 99)) sleep 0.2 mkfs -t vfat -n DOOM${x} ${disk}${x} sleep 0.2 done
And I used a zsh-ism – so shoot me.
The script ran fairly well, but :-
- The load average shot up through the roof as copies of systemd-udevd started, worked, and closed.
- Strangely the links in /dev/disk/by-label (and presumably elsewhere) kept disappearing and re-appearing. As if on each partition change to the disk, all of the disk’s devices were removed and re-created. This is probably not dangerous, but harmful to performance.
- Given that I used sleep within my script, it is hard to criticise performance, but it did seem slow. However this is not an area worth optimising for.
- Unlike last time, Linux did not refuse to create any file systems.
Now onto trying to stick the memory stick of doom into various systems…
Ubuntu 17.10
This was of course the machine I ran the script on initially.
This did not go so well, with the machine initially freezing momentarily (although it is a cheap and nasty laptop), apparently silently refusing to mount half the file systems, and “Files” (or Nautilus) getting wedged at 100% processor usage.
After some 10 minutes, Nautilus was still stuck with no signs of making any progress.
After I lost patience and restarted “Files”, it came up okay showing the mounted file systems and showing the file systems it had failed to mount. On one occasion the additional file systems were shown as unmounted (and could be mounted) and on another they were shown as mounted (even though they weren’t).
So both “Files” gets a thumb down for getting stuck, and whatever else gets a thumb down for trying and failing (silently) to mount all the file systems.
This is definitely a serious degradation from the previous try, although probably GNOME-specific rather than Linux-specific. Especially as a later mounted all the file systems from the command-line on a different system without an issue.
Windows 10
Windows 10 became unusually sluggish, although it may have been in the mysterious “we’ll run Windows update at the most inconvenient time possible” mode. It did attempt to mount the file systems, and failed miserably – it mounted the first set until it ran out of drive letters.
Which is just about understandable, as there aren’t 100 drive letters. However :-
- Where was the message saying “There are 100 partitions in this silly USB stick. You can see the first 22; additional ones can be mounted within folders if there is important data on them.”.
- Why is Windows still limiting itself with single letter device names? Okay it is what we’re used to, but when you run out of drive letters, start using the file system label – “DOOM99:”. Hell, I’d like all my removable disks treated that way under Windows.
As for the whole “ran out of drive letters, so don’t bother with the rest”, how many people are aware that drives can be mounted (as Unix does) in directories?
macOS 10.13 (OSX)
Oddly enough (but perhaps sensibly), macOS refused to have anything to do with the memory stick. Indeed it popped up a dialog suggesting initialising the disk, which is perhaps not particularly sensible with a disk that could contain data.
The “Disk Utility” happily showed the disk – increasing the size of the window inconveniently wide in the process – and happily indicated 99 partitions.
At the Terminal prompt, it was apparent that the operating system had created device files for each of the partitions, but for some reason wouldn’t mount them.
Summary
Inserting a “stick of doom” with 100 partitions on it into any machine is still a risky thing to do. It’s also a dumb thing to do, but something operating system developers should be doing.
Linux (or rather GNOME) performs significant worse this time around than previously, and my suspicions are that systemd is to blame.
But however bad Linux does, none of the operating systems actually do sensible things with the “stick of doom”. macOS arguably comes closest with refusing to have anything to do with the disk, but it also encourages you to reformat the disk without saying that it could be erasing data.
Ideally, a gooey would pop up a window listing the file system labels and ask you which you want to mount. That’s not even a bad idea for a more sensibly set up memory stick.
I have made the dreadful mistake of having two winter coats. To those who are used to making clothing decisions, this may seem trivial, but I am now in danger of standing in front of the coat pegs trying to decide which one to choose. And just to emphasise that, this post is written because I spent 30s doing exactly that the other day.
Should I choose the sensible coat (which seems to have mysteriously lost girth in the last few years), or do I choose the extreme weather coat? Weather sometimes makes the choice for me, but more often than not it doesn’t. Which one looks better?
Now that is a daft question. I can make myself look “smart” but that comes at the cost of looking like I work for one of the Kray twins (or rather their spiritual descendants). Probably one with an affectionate nickname like “Murder Mike”.
Although that could have something to do with the expression that automatically appears on my face whenever I put on a suit. The kind that causes small children to burst into tears when they see me with it.
On a slightly more serious note, it is worth noting that con-men have also heard the phrase “Clothes maketh the man” and makes use of it.
Or which one is more comfortable? Well in extreme weather, the extreme weather coat of course, but it also quickly becomes too warm. And it’s heavy.
So now I’m stuck with two coats, and if I’m late into work this morning, it’ll be because of the coat choice.
About 100 years ago (being somewhat pessimistic about how long it will take me to write this), the Representation of the People Act was passed. Understandably enough, there’s been a whole bunch of comments regarding women getting the vote; and it was certainly a significant reform because of that.
But you have to hunt long and hard to realise that it also enshrined the one man, at least one vote principle (some University graduates could vote twice). Due to the previous property qualification, before 1918 only 60% of men could vote.
Which is almost as significant as giving women the vote.
Women got the same rights as men 10 years later in the 1928 Representation of the People Act.