Tactical Routing

“Rather than replacing routers when they literally stopped working, I increasingly needed to act earlier—swapping in new gear because an old router could no longer keep up with increasing Internet speeds available in the area. Famously around the Ars forums, this problem soon evolved into our homebrew router initiative. In January, I showed my math as a DIY-Linux router outpaced popular off-the-shelf options like the Netgear Nighthawk X6 and the Linksys N600 EA-2750. And in August, I shared the steps necessary to build one of your own.”
 
See The Router rumble: Ars DIY build faces better tests, tougher competition
It wasn’t in my plan. Our router worked. It was old but it worked. Then, TLW was inspired to increase our speed of connection to the ISP… Suddenly the router was a bottleneck. It maxed out at only 100 megabits/s, not good enough in the 21st century, apparently.

So, as a stop-gap, I’m making Beast III the router and later will switch to an Odroid-C2 which will be able to keep up. I’ll have to add a USB 2.0 Ethernet dongle to add a second NIC. meh… It’ll give me something to do while I wait for my Cello to replace Beast, put away my plants in pots, weld the new frame for the alternator and go hunting…

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in family, technology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Tactical Routing

  1. oiaohm says:

    I see personal attacks again. Of course I am not the best of the Australians. I would never think I would be successful at getting to be governor general.

  2. dougman says:

    “This is where Australia gets super funny.”

    Yes, Spammy, by reading your “wall-o-text” I can see you represent Australia as the best of the best of the best.

  3. oiaohm says:

    Then, you have the Australian prime minister who is chosen by the elected members of the party/parties that have won a majority of seats in the house of representatives, whereas the American president is directly elected by the people.
    You do know that the Australian prime minister in fact cannot declare war or use the armed forces directly. So does not in fact match up to the president of the USA. The Australian Prime Minister in time of war is totally expendable.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia#Method_of_appointment

    Governor General is really sitting in the Australian role of President. This is always the problem when Australia has debates about coming a republic.

    Yes Prime Minister picks the next Governor General. Then has to get that person past the queen and then its person is announced to the public so they can complain to the Queen or Senate or House of Representatives or Supreme Court for rejection if not rejected by that process then person gets to take Oath. Yes any one of those 4 can boycott the oath so making it impossible for a person to come Governor General. So effectively one vote backed with facts in the Supreme Court can stop a person becoming Governor General.

    So by your reckoning, delegates ≠ people. That’s some fuzzy logic, did you fall and bump your head?
    Did you bump you head really. “by the people” you wrote.
    By the rules of “The Commonwealth of Nations” something “by the people” has to be a vote of the population. Anything done by delegates is called “for the people”. One word makes a huge difference. For the people means that over 50 percent of the population could have rejected the item yet it still has got past.

    There does become a problem “voting is compulsory” has a reason. If voting turn out in Canada or Britain get too low the complete vote can be classed as not a vote by the people. Yes if 50.0001% don’t vote in Canada or Britain is a mega stuff up because the constitution demands a “by the people” vote and that means at least 50% has to vote. Most of the recent USA elections have been too low to be classed as a successful vote “by the people” in a commonwealth country.

    So voting compulsory means if not enough people turn up for some reason under the Australian system you can go around fining them and collecting the vote to get over the magic number.

    This is where Australia gets super funny. Due to the fact the Australian Constitution says a person cannot be discriminated on religious ground if you claim you did not vote for religious reasons shock horror its legal not to vote. Yes religious reasons can mean you don’t find any of the offering morally acceptable.

    Basically it is compulsory to register to vote in Australia and tell the electional commission if you are not voting so they don’t waste money printing as many excess forms. Yes if you have said you are not voting in a election you cannot change your mind latter on but it only applies to that election you can choose to vote in the next one. Of course a compulsory voting system without the Australia get out of jail free card is a problem.

  4. dougman says:

    “the American president is directly elected by the people”…..”Not true. The people get to elect delegates”

    So by your reckoning, delegates ≠ people. That’s some fuzzy logic, did you fall and bump your head?

  5. dougman, not understanding much, wrote, “the American president is directly elected by the people”.

    Not true. The people get to elect delegates who then choose from a rather small pool of candidates. Just look at what’s happening today. That pool of candidates includes two really disliked candidates and two that are excluded from the networked debates. In fact, it is quite possible that the next POTUS could get less than 50% of the vote and even less than another candidate however horrible they both are. The US presidential system was developed when it was easier to send delegates by horse to Washington than to hold a proper election and each state wanted its own method of choosing delegates to the electoral college and congress. It’s a really weird system but the “two-party” system likes it because it keeps them in power. USA has lost legitimacy as a democracy with this crazy system where popularity on TV and money are much more important than sanity/performance/decency/judgment.

  6. oiaohm says:

    OH yes, SURE….mandatory buybacks would fly so very well over the 50 individuals nations that make up the American Republic.
    Ever wonder why that stopped suddenly. Because that mandatory buyback was a breach of the Australian constitution Section 51 (xxxi). Had to be replaced with a buyback or license option. The license option for those with existing weapons was free at first. License option requires spending time at a gun range making sure you can in fact use the weapons you have to put a bullets on target. If you could not use the weapon effectively you were forced to give it up for everyone safety.

    So idea that Mandatory buyback flew in Australia is so much bull its not funny.

    So first attempt the mandatory buyback in Australia was in fact breach of Australian Constitution and was stopped by court challenge so this failed implementation so never classed as implemented.
    Then the second attempt is buyback or license option that was Australian constitution legal and also would be USA constitution legal and has to be legal that license weapons has been implemented in many USA states already. Yes the second attempt was the first gun control thing in Australia to be successfully implemented.
    We are now on to the third attempt that is restricting ammo purchases so that you gun license lists the weapon types you have and you can only by ammo matching those weapon types. The third already exists in USA law just not enforced in this time period but has been enforced back in history.

    So you are in fact you are talking mandatory buybacks that does not legal fly in Australia. Does it happen that governments at times pass laws without checking that its constitutionally allowed? Yes it does it happened in the USA and Canada a few times as well and going to court normally gets the law kicked.

    USA Constitution equals Australia Constitution…people fail to understand is everything that is implemented in Australia for gun control could be implemented in the USA without breaking the constitution because both constitutions provide the same level of restrictions on law makers.
    That is mostly true when it comes to implementing gun control like it or not. Yes there are other sections of the USA vs Australian Constitution that are different. Gun control is basically an area where both Constitutions put up mostly identical restrictions on what law makers can and cannot do.

    Only difference is that the Australian Constitution mandates that Australian have equal weapon access as government. So if Australian government has automated human killing drones so can citizens.

    Get this in you idiot brain implemented in Australia does not cover mandatory buyback. Mandatory buyback was something that was attempted to be implemented then found not to be legal.

  7. dougman says:

    “everything that is implemented in Australia for gun control could be implemented in the USA without breaking the constitution”

    OH yes, SURE….mandatory buybacks would fly so very well over the 50 individuals nations that make up the American Republic.

    LOL, I DARE YOU…please!!….please!!….I double DARE YOU…. to argue that line with any US Senator or US Congressman. I’d gladly pay $500 for you to do so. If you refuse, then you know as I already know, that you could never win trumpeting that silly argument.

  8. dougman says:

    “USA Constitution equals Australia Constitution…people fail to understand is everything that is implemented in Australia for gun control could be implemented in the USA without breaking the constitution because both constitutions provide the same level of restrictions on law makers.”

    Ham-Dong, where do you find this material, you sir should be nominated for the Nobel.

    Well lets see, America is a republic, whereas Australia is a constitutional monarchy.

    Then, you have the Australian prime minister who is chosen by the elected members of the party/parties that have won a majority of seats in the house of representatives, whereas the American president is directly elected by the people.

    Next you find that electoral enrollment and voting is compulsory in Australia, but voluntary in America.

    So for you to set there and say that both are equal, just shows your ignorance.

  9. oiaohm says:

    dougman please stop quoting USA idiots who don’t know what prohibited means.

    Canada is exactly like Australia has prohibited weapons not banned on firearms. Exactly like Australian a person willing to jump through enough paper work can own everything on the prohibited list. Attempting to say it is excessive paperwork it is fine.

    Canada does have a 4 category that are banned out right so are not restricted or prohibited. Less than 10 items is in that list.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842
    Since when are at war, and with whom? Are you going to donate your old router to ISIS to be used as an IED?
    This is something to think about some of the IEDs in Iraq and other places are built from ammo.

    Australian firearm control laws have basically evolved to follow the old USA laws on the control of explosives. So you have to register the gun you have so you can buy ammo for it. Otherwise having the ammo is illegal. A gun without ammo is not much use. Also ammo like it not put of a sent that dogs can be trained to hunt down.

    So implementing the current form of the Australian firearm laws in USA would just mean having to get serous about enforcing the 18 U.S. Code § 842 of the USA law.

    Gun idiots in the USA put up “D.C. vs. Heller”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
    The 2010 case in fact extremely restricts what the D.C. vs Heller means.

    Your current prime minister could pass an Australian type of decision and just round them all up. Canada is no different.
    Please note the Australian restriction on semi-auto and automatic had to provide the option to legally license them. The first firearms law in Australia had to be altered because it failed court because it breached constitution.

    protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi))
    The case fort over Section 51(xxxi) in the Australian constitution equalled the right to bear arms as one of it meanings. But the case also said the government has also a duty of care to make sure weapons are used responsibility.
    Yes the government of Australia based the first law that banning weapons out right was to (meaning one of Section 51(xxxi) )prevent firearms being used to acquire items on unjust terms.

    Yes the right to bear arms is the (meaning two of Section 51(xxxi) )legal right to protect property from unjust acquirement in Australia including from the government so you must have equal right to arms as the government.

    So all laws over firearms/weapons have to conform to both meanings of Section 51(xxxi) in Australia. That case is how come we only have prohibited weapons and no category of fully banned.

    To be horible this is why I think the Australia constitution need some revisions the wording. Your Property in the Australian constitution include your family members and any employee as well as everything else because since its from 1 January 1901 this is when slavery was still legal in Australia so humans could be classed as Property. One of the first acts under the new government in 1901 was to make slavery illegal.

    So USA Constitution 2 and 14 Amendment together equals Australia Constitution Section 51(xxxi). So this is what USA people fail to understand is everything that is implemented in Australia for gun control could be implemented in the USA without breaking the constitution because both constitutions provide the same level of restrictions on law makers. The Australian version is written a little more stealthy and done in one very short line.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tactical
    of, relating to, or used for a specific plan that is created to achieve a particular goal in war, politics, etc.
    More on topic, “tactical” as defined, means relating to, or used for a specific plan that is created to achieve a particular goal in war.
    Idiot please go read a dictionary. Note the etc. So a specific plan to achieve a particular goal for any reason is tactical. Only poorly educated people think that tactical only applies to war.

  10. dougman says:

    “we are at war with all kinds of miscreants who want to intrude on our networks. The router is one of the lines of defence.”

    What a god send some of these hackers are these days. Who would have ever thought that hacking would enable the means to affect politics.

  11. dougman wrote, “means relating to, or used for a specific plan that is created to achieve a particular goal in war.”

    Nonsense. Tactical also means, generally, “pertaining to, or characterized by, planning or maneuvering for the short term”.

    OTOH, we are at war with all kinds of miscreants who want to intrude on our networks. The router is one of the lines of defence.

  12. dougman says:

    More on topic, “tactical” as defined, means relating to, or used for a specific plan that is created to achieve a particular goal in war.

    Since when are at war, and with whom? Are you going to donate your old router to ISIS to be used as an IED?

    Perhaps, you meant to say “tacticool”? If so, when are you going to mount a hockey-stick and beer bottle on your shotgun?

  13. dougman wrote, “Your current prime minister could pass an Australian type of decision and just round them all up. Canada is no different. “

    They tried just to register firearms and failed miserably despite spending $billions on the project. Free people can defy tyrants.

    dougman wrote, ““Self-loading is dangerous in hunting.”
     
    Oh? Please explain this belief.”

    Many “unloaded” firearms have injured people. Hunting is a dynamic environment. Hunters may be distracted and forget to clear the firearm. With a bolt-action this is one less thing to worry about. Further, self-loaders may cycle in brush/twigs and jam. This could be dangerous with dangerous game. I’ve seen a moose-hunter with a jammed semi-auto just feet away from an injured but standing bull moose. That hunter was in danger. With a bolt-action, a hunter consciously reloads at an appropriate time and place. A bolt-action can jam, too, but a shooter has much more leverage to clear it. Also, a hunter is at very little disadvantage without a semi-auto. In sixty years of hunting I’ve only needed one follow-up shot and the bolt-action worked perfectly. I hunt with a muzzle-loader too for the ultimate in safety.

  14. dougman says:

    “The rules tend to be that in a traffic stop police are to be informed of firearms in a vehicle.”

    Same here, due to plate readers.

    “I’ve been stopped a few times in Canada for bad headlights and a plate mounted incorrectly on a borrowed vehicle and no one pointed a firearm at me.”

    Never have I had an officer draw a bead on me either.

    “I or any properly licensed person can go into a shop and buy a long firearm just like any other goods with zero waiting.”

    Licensed, lol. I can go downstairs and whip out another firearm if I like; see thats the point I am making, there is no need for a license to buy a firearm.

    “There is a legal right to buy firearms”

    *FAIL* Canadians enjoy no LEGAL right to firearms. As confirmed by a 1993 Supreme Court decision, which concluded that Canadians have no constitutional right to bear arms. Your current prime minister could pass an Australian type of decision and just round them all up. Canada is no different.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/is-gun-ownership-a-legal-right-in-canada-1.2723893

    “Self-loading is dangerous in hunting.”

    Oh? Please explain this belief.

    “No one bans semi-autos.”

    *FAIL* Canada bans plenty of semi-autos.

    http://www.gunownersresource.com/faq/what-guns-are-banned-in-canada/

  15. dougman wrote, “it would be reasonable to estimate that number of privately owned firearms is 25 times higher in the United States than in Canada”.

    Unless one is comparing armies at war, one considers value/unit population not total numbers when assessing freedom or quality of life. I don’t care that USA has more but only whether I have enough. I do.

  16. dougman says:

    Well you did say, ‘“In USA it’s much higher rate despite a similar order of magnitude firearms ownership.” and taking into account that the US population is about 10 times that of Canada, it would be reasonable to estimate that number of privately owned firearms is 25 times higher in the United States than in Canada, there are far more firearms off record then there are on record.

  17. dougman wrote, “For example, you state “in USA, one can be hassled, even shot, carrying firearms, ammunition and/or money across state lines.” which bewilders me.”

    The rules tend to be that in a traffic stop police are to be informed of firearms in a vehicle. This causes police to draw and point firearms and accidents do happen. I’ve been stopped a few times in Canada for bad headlights and a plate mounted incorrectly on a borrowed vehicle and no one pointed a firearm at me.

    dougman also wrote a bunch of crap…

    I or any properly licensed person can go into a shop and buy a long firearm just like any other goods with zero waiting. The firearms registry that induced long waits was mercifully killed years ago.

    There is a legal right to buy firearms for the good people who are able to pass a simple training course and are of good character and reputation. It may take a bit of time/effort to find a course and take the test but once that’s over the application process for a licence takes a few weeks at most and the licence is good for years. It’s renewed every five years rather simply.

    Semi-auto firearms are not banned outright except for a few military kinds that have full-auto options. I’ve seen M1 carbines, garands, SKS, SVT-40 and AG-42B, old military semi-autos sold to the public. Lots of folks use modern sporting semi-autos. So, while there are those in government who wish to ban willy-nilly they have not succeeded largely. Personally, I’ve used semi-autos and except for .22RF for gophers and other target-rich environments I don’t have much use for one. They toss brass that I want to reload so that’s a negative. The extra weight/length for moving parts and tossed brass are big negatives. Self-loading is dangerous in hunting. I prefer single-shots or bolt-actions. No one bans semi-autos.

  18. dougman wrote, “Canadians own less firearms.”

    I wrote “similar” for a reason. The population is about 11:1 but the firearms ownership is about 1.5:1. While we Canadians may own way fewer pistols we have a lot of long guns. The late Canadian Firearms Registry of long firearms had about 7 million, the tip of the iceberg. In reality there are nearly 1 long firearm per Canadian. Firearms last a long time so they are not going away. Just like money, some folks have way more than others

    Many rural families will have a .22, a .303/308/30-’06, a shotgun and possibly a varmint rifle for each member of the family. That adds up. When I was a boy there was a .22, two .303s, and a shotgun in a family of five when only two of us were shooters. The reason is that hunting/shooting is often done socially, in a group. Farm families have a safe location to shoot, more opportunity and more reasons to shoot. These days the number of farming families has decreased as farms grew in size but the urban cousins almost always like a few outings a year including hunting for shooting and the firearms come out of storage on occasion.

    While the recent attempt to strangle firearms ownership dampened enthusiasm reason won out and today one can buy all the usual firearms at a local Canadian Tire store and a few big box stores, up to including .50BMG, a firearm I consider just about useless in Canada. Still I’ve met people firing .50BMG …

    So, firearms ownership is alive and well in Canada even though we don’t love pistols nearly as much.

  19. dougman says:

    Only in Australia, would a buffoon argue over constitutional rights. I’d love to see you argue your merits before a judge, seriously! I would pay good money to see you stand before the bar, throw your drivel at the bench and witness the confused look on the judge’s face. LOL…

    I present HAM-DONG, Esquire, the peoples counsel for Judge Milian, on The People’s Court.

  20. oiaohm says:

    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    People miss that this does not say militia on its own. It says a “A well regulated militia” being a militia does not containing child soldiers. Yes the USA mil disregard the law of over explosives as well.

    Also not infringing the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent horrible locations. So lets say the USA government decide that the citizen militia was only allowed old school musket ball gun and they then give the police and military state of the art machine guns. The militia still has the right to bear arms just not useful ones. Yes that is allowed by Amendment 14 that USA citizens don’t get taught about in school. Yes all the nasty Amendments are outside the top 10.

    This is why I am so much happier with Australian simpler rules where everyone must play on a level playing field with firearms and other prohibited weapons.

  21. oiaohm says:

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842
    18 U.S. Code § 842 (d) (1) is a really good one. Notice age 21 years old.

    Yes some of it is under title 18. So 842 mean anything explosive including gunpowder. So at 12 years old you are way short of being 21 year old the age you are required to be to handle gunpowder. Maybe you have really bad memory and have remember the age when you did it completely backwards.

    17 years old of course 18 U.S. Code § 842 (d) (1) applies because you cannot shot it to know it works because you are not allowed ammo until you are 21. And anyone giving you ammo while you are under the age of 21 is breaking the law. Yes you should not be able to buy fireworks in the USA until you are 21 years old as well.

    To be correct
    In D.C. vs. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right. This is why people in the majority of States do not need a license for a firearm.
    For 21 years or older. As at the time being involved in war and under the age of 21 years old was classed as a illegal child solider.
    Understand, “the militia” of the day, were able-bodied men age 16-45.
    So the 16-20 year olds in the militia should have never been taking part. Only the ones 21-45 were legal members of the USA militia.

    You also need to go read “McDonald v. City of Chicago from 2010”. Yes Second Amendment give you the right to have a firearm for self defence but the Fourteenth Amendment the “Due Process Clause” allows government to put requirements on having a firearm for self defence include restriction that you must be 21 years or older. Second Amendment does not over ride all the difference sections in USA law saying 21 years or older for different things related to firearms.

    I wrote 18 before because Australia law converted all its 21 year old requirements to 18. USA law is still filled over the place with must be 21 years old or its illegal.

    So I ask, which of the Bill of Rights do not apply to children?
    The answer is if you are under 21 year old the none of the USA Bill of Rights
    apply to you at all. Only people 21 years or old get rights from the USA Bill of Rights. Protection of those under the age of 21 comes from other sections of USA laws.

    If you read Amendment 6
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
    How many cases for those under the age of 21 are the cases handled without a public trial with a trial behind closed doors. Yes this is only possible because the USA Bill of Rights does not apply to people under 21. Courts or course being kind can take guidance from the USA Bill of Rights when dealing with a person under the age of 21.

    Yes you are taught about the bill of rights you are not taught about the fact it only applies to people 21 years or older.

  22. dougman says:

    “In fact like it or not by USA law both of those actions are illegal as you have to be over 18 to-do both by law no exception. So you just openly admitted to committing a crime under USA law. ”

    Please quote either from the CFR or USC the crime alleged. I will even help you, look in Title 27 or Title 18.

    “The right to bare arms in the USA constitution does not in fact apply to Children those are classed as anyone under 18. Yes the USA constitution has a nasty loop hole that means if you are under 18 you are not protected by most of it.”

    So what about the other rights? According to you, those rights would not be applicable to someone under the age of 18. So I ask, which of the Bill of Rights do not apply to children?

    Understand, “the militia” of the day, were able-bodied men age 16-45. In addition, The Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing right and protects individual, not collective rights. The Constitution doesn’t grant or create rights; it recognizes and protects rights that inherently exist. This is why the Founders used the word “unalienable” previously in the Declaration of Independence; these rights cannot be created or taken away.

    In D.C. vs. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right. This is why people in the majority of States do not need a license for a firearm. Unlike, Australia and/or Canada.

  23. oiaohm says:

    In fact, at age 12 I was loading pistol cartridges and shotgun shells. Never recall me being under age a problem.

    In fact, I built a gun at age 17 it was a .22 caliber bolt action rifle. Never recall me being under age a problem.
    In fact like it or not by USA law both of those actions are illegal as you have to be over 18 to-do both by law no exception. So you just openly admitted to committing a crime under USA law. The right to bare arms in the USA constitution does not in fact apply to Children those are classed as anyone under 18. Yes the USA constitution has a nasty loop hole that means if you are under 18 you are not protected by most of it. This is the thing about the Australian constitution is applies to everyone no matter the age and why making changes to it are taken very serous-ally. So most of the school shootings in the USA are in fact done by Children who have no legal right at all to have access to guns or ammo in the first place. Only reason why those Children have access to guns or ammo is lack of enforcement of the law. If the USA law was enforce the parents of the Children doing school shootings would be in prison.

    This is a big USA problem. Lot of USA people are happy they are doing lots of things that by USA law are purely illegal and the police don’t enforce the law on them.

    By Australian or Canada law you could have had your licenses to-do firearm construction and weapon carrying from the ages stated legally.

    The Australian legal Min age limit for a firearm license is 12 years old. Yes 12 year old is allowed to carry a gun for defence of others(others do include non human things) and pest control. In fact it possible to issue a special conditions permit for a gun for someone as young as 6 years old in Australia. Yes 6 years old is the bare min.

    Canada allows younger legal ownership and use of guns than the USA and Australia in fact there is no minimum age at all in Canada for the unrestricted firearms as long as the person can pass the required exam. In theory if a 1 min old baby could pass the exam that baby could hold a firearm license in Canada at 3 months old.

    Your application will be sent to Police Licensing Services who will send you a package to complete and return. At a later date, you will be requested to participate in a theoretical test of your knowledge and experience in relation to the subject.
    This is the limit to Australian Firearm/Weapon Manufacturers Licence. Not age limit in Australia. So a person can hold a Australian Firearm/Weapon Manufacturers license for a weapon they are not allowed to use because they are too young. So anyone who can prove they know what they care doing can hold a Australian Firearm/Weapon Manufacturers license.

    Now the issue with your 17 year old stupidity if you don’t know what you are doing and make a gun wrong it can major-ally harm you or others. The Australian law over Manufacturers License makes absolute sense. It means you do your exams then make your weapon so you do properly know the theory of what you are doing.

    If I have been issued a permit covering prohibited weapons that is like the USA Concealed Carry Permit in one state of Australia as long as I am meeting the conditions in that permit it applies to all states and territories of Australia.

    Yes if you want to carry a gun, baton, tazer and pepper spray in Australia in a concealed way you just need to fill out one Australian permit equal to the USA Concealed Carry Permit listing them all and have the required training to show you know how to use them properly Yes some states in USA that are like Australia when you cannot get a Concealed Carry without holding a firearms license in that state. The difference we have to write a few more weapons on our Concealed Carry permit equal.

    The reason why I get permit when I am in a state in Australia where its legal to carry pepper spray is if go cross state boarders for any reason I don’t end on the wrong side of law.

    So Australia firearm laws compare to USA ones depends what State in the USA you compare it to. The big thing is compared to all USA states Australians are legally allowed firearms from a younger age and broader range of weapons. Licensing term and Reciprocity across Australia is better than the most restrictive USA states. We don’t have the Reciprocity question in Australia. Things just go horribly wrong in Australia if you don’t do the paper work permits and forget a shade of grey difference in what is acceptable in one state to another.

    The reality here in Australia we are not going to wake up with a very rude shock if our government changes and they start getting serous about enforcing the laws like USA people could. So really a USA person should be complaining about Australian laws restrictions on weapons because we are way less restricted than you. Even Canada law is in many places way less restricted than you.

    Canada is still allowed semi-automatic weapons. Australia we are allowed automatic weapons but getting permits to store and use them is hard work.

    Here is something interesting. Canada “barrel shorter than 10.5 cm” is based on study of gun usage. Turns out pistols with barrel lengths shorter than 10.5cm the odds of you shooting self go up by a fact of 50. The Australian police found this one out the hard way because early Glock that the Australian police force got were shorter than 10.5 cm. Since they have swapped to 11.4 cm barrel Glock the accidental shooting numbers have gone way down. By the numbers I don’t think I would ever want a gun with barrel length less than 10.5 cm. So I don’t see Canada hand gun restrictions as a problem. There is issues with humans handling items smaller than particular sizes.

    You can see the reason for the 10.5 cm. Put you hand in holding position from the thumb measure forwards 10.5 cm. If you are ~6 foot you will notice 10.5cm is about min location you want the trigger guard. So if you don’t state a 10.5cm min barrel length you need to state rules about trigger design and trigger guard that will mostly result in you ending up with a 10.5cm barrel anyhow on a automatic compact pistol. Of course by setting barrel length to 10.5 accuracy. So best size to hold and draw is bigger than 10.5cm and with good design barrel length can be most of that.

    Now this brings a question when a gun with a barrel length less than 10.5 cm is unsafe why in hell does anyone buy them. Maybe they are idiots?? Canada barrel length restriction is mostly to prevent idiots hurting themselves or others.

  24. dougman says:

    “Homicide rate by firearms is ~1K per annum for 30million people.”

    Ah yes, a wintry wonderland suitable for liberal socialists.

    “In USA it’s much higher rate despite a similar order of magnitude firearms ownership.”

    Canadians own less firearms.

    “Folks in USA have first and foremost the idea that firearms are tools to use against people.”

    Well, black-on-black crime is a problem, however our homicide rates are at 51 year low. https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

    Trying to make it sound something worse is just a knee-jerk reaction surpasses common data and logic.

  25. dougman says:

    “In fact, in USA, if you want to buy firearms/ammunition legally, one must be a US citizen or landed immigrant and 18 or over.”

    In fact, at age 12 I was loading pistol cartridges and shotgun shells. Never recall me being under age a problem.

    In fact, I built a gun at age 17 it was a .22 caliber bolt action rifle. Never recall me being under age a problem.

    In fact, your sense of freedom is serious lacking any common-sense. For example, you state “in USA, one can be hassled, even shot, carrying firearms, ammunition and/or money across state lines.” which bewilders me. The majority of States in the US have reciprocity agreements for carrying a gun, see: http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

    “In Canada, I can buy a firearm or ammunition in any part of Canada and carry it to any other part with impunity, thanks to proper licensing and separation of powers between federal and provincial governments.”

    Just being able to move a shotgun from one province to another, is NOT freedom. lets see what Canada requires.

    “There is no legal right to possess arms in Canada.”

    “It takes sixty days to buy a gun, there is mandatory licensing for gun owners.”

    “Gun owners pursuing a license must have third-party references, take a safety training course and pass a background check”

    “Canadian civilians aren’t allowed to possess automatic weapons, handguns with a barrel shorter than 10.5 cm or any modified handgun, rifle or shotgun.”

    “Most semi-automatic scary weapons are also banned.”

    I would also add, that more than 50% of the population speaks something other than English as a first language. Toronto is one of the most multi-cultural cities on the planet. Montreal has a very large Haitian population. In time, the cultural identity of Canada what made Canada great, will be sadly lost. That IS a FACT!

  26. Homicide rate by firearms is ~1K per annum for 30million people. In USA it’s much higher rate despite a similar order of magnitude firearms ownership. Folks in USA have first and foremost the idea that firearms are tools to use against people. We don’t generally have that in Canada. That’s freedom, not trying to kill each other.

  27. dougman says:

    “Chuckle. I can walk around my neighbourhood pushing the latest granddaughter in a pram with ZERO fear of being shot. That’s freedom. I can throw a party at my place with ZERO fear that my neighbour will be ticked off and come shoot us up. That’s freedom.”

    Chuckle, you don’t say eh?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/shooting-sends-people-scurrying-from-mall-in-grande-prairie-alta-1.3764905

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sentencing-hearing-gerald-battersby-1.3766408

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/man-charged-with-shooting-at-regina-pump-roadhouse-1.3763986

    http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/winnipeg-boy-10-shot-in-the-leg-while-visiting-family-in-middlebro-1.3000275

  28. dougman wrote, “you can do this and that in Australia, but stating in the same breathe that you need a license to do so, is NOT freedom.”

    Chuckle. I can walk around my neighbourhood pushing the latest granddaughter in a pram with ZERO fear of being shot. That’s freedom. I can throw a party at my place with ZERO fear that my neighbour will be ticked off and come shoot us up. That’s freedom.

    Licences serve many purposes, only one of which might be to stifle freedom. In fact, in USA, if you want to buy firearms/ammunition legally, one must be a US citizen or landed immigrant and 18 or over. To prove that takes some documentation, a licence if you wish.

    Also, in USA, one can be hassled, even shot, carrying firearms/ammunition/money across state lines. In Canada, I can buy a firearm or ammunition in any part of Canada and carry it to any other part with impunity, thanks to proper licensing and separation of powers between federal and provincial governments. That’s freedom.

  29. dougman says:

    You need permits to breathe, procreate and eat for being an idiot.

    Gloating how you can do this and that in Australia, but stating in the same breathe that you need a license to do so, is NOT freedom. Americans are laughing at you and your country.

    Go pound sand you useless tool.

  30. oiaohm says:

    As it is illegal to carry or possess pepper spray or mace in Australia.
    That line is wrong. I have had permits many times to have pepper spray and mace for many different reasons. That line is wrong its only prohibited not illegal to possess or carry completely. Prohibited Australian law means license or permit results in legal to carry or possess.

    Unauthorized possession or use of pepper spray or mace is a serious offence.
    Unauthorised possession is that you don’t have permit/license covering it. Something that is prohibited has both authorised and unauthorised possession. Of course authorised possession is 100 percent legal.

    And it wrong that Unauthorised possession of pepper spray is always a offence depends what state of Australia you are in if pepper spray and mace are prohibited status effects self-defence usage.

    http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/news-and-views/opinion/i-faced-a-14year-jail-sentence-for-carrying-pepper-spray-20140723-3cffk.html
    Yes if person is in like NSW they fact 14 years for pepper spray without authorisation. Yet if they are in Western Australia and female its legal without authorisation for 1 can of pepper spray. But there is a catch here having pepper spray and some other item that is on the prohibited equals being charged for both. In fact in Western Australia carrying two cans of pepper spray is get charged for both unless you have permit to carry two. Why its self-defence not arm yourself with 100 and 1 weapons.

    So if unauthorised possession applies to you over pepper spray in Australia it depends what state you are currently in and your sex and number.

    It can be prosecuted on indictment, which means you can face a jury trial in the district court. Only in some states of Australia not them all. Some Australian states for pepper spray it only a fine. Each Australian state is free to set what the punishment is for every type of prohibited weapon that is not a firearm.
    It maybe prosecuted on indictment depending on Australian State.
    Would be correct state to that sentence. Shades of grey again.

    Considering the majority of US States, one does not need any sort of license or permit to own a firearm, your point is rather moot. I even dare you to build your own firearm, it is rather satisfying to do actually. NO?..ok, well I do understand that in Australia, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law.
    Note you used the word majority even in firearm licenses in the USA its shades of grey. Yet for some reason you are over and over again taking a point of view that Australia is black and white with these laws when we are not. We are a commonwealth and its state police and courts who enforce firearm laws with a lot of variation in results.

    Before the firearms law I built crossbows and was licensed to make them for a while after the gun laws. I had a set of self made automatic reloading triple bow crossbows great for feral pest hunting. Sorry I have had the licence to make my own firearms before it not that hard to get if you wish to have it. Application takes 60 days to process then you can make weapons types you have listed.

    Interesting point here we don’t have anything in law that says you are allowed to own a gun and its not really need as it would be extra garbage in the Australian constitution mostly duplicating what is already contained.

    To be correct the section of constitution that applies is.
    protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi))
    So any asset transaction be it a gun or a car or a block of land must be done under equal terms on everyone. So if the Australian government can buy a gun/tank/fighter jet…. so can normal citizen as long a the same set of conditions can be meet. Lets just say the Australia constitution section equal to the USA right to bear arms is way broader covering all forms of assets in one big cover everything clause. Only difference is the Australian constitution version does not prevent government putting a list of conditions on weapons that everyone including them has to obey. So this means a law controlling weapons has to apply equally to police, military and civilians.

    Now do you see why prohibited and conditions is used. Its not illegal to put a set of conditions on weapons. Now if they make any item illegal out right for citizens the result under Australian constitution is police and military would not legally be able to have those items either. Writing in law that if a person is police or military they get an exception is also breach of constitution.

    Where do you find this information!?
    The reality its part of the Australian constitution. Just we used the word property not the words gun or weapon or any other limiting term. Really there is no exact reason why the right to bare arms has to be in the constitution when you wake up how far rules covering property can go enforcing a fair playing field.

    Basically its about time USA people stop quoting their constitution at Australians and wake up that Australians just wrote a lot of the same things in way broader ways.

  31. dougman says:

    “You claimed that Australians could not have pepper spray”

    Oh yes, the pepper spray thing, well you said “could not” but my actual statement is below. I dare you to find “could not”.

    http://mrpogson.com/2016/09/10/double-standard/#comment-351670

    “What would you know about pepper-spray? As it is illegal to carry or possess pepper spray or mace in Australia. These items are classed as prohibited weapons! Unauthorized possession or use of pepper spray or mace is a serious offence. It can be prosecuted on indictment, which means you can face a jury trial in the district court. If you are charged on indictment, then the maximum penalty is up to 14 years in prison.”

    Another gem of a comment, “The reality is as an Australian if I do all the required licensing and permits I am allowed to own more weapon types than a USA person is as an individual. ”

    Licensing and permits allows you to own MORE weapon types then someone residing in America? LMAO..that is funny as heck! Where do you find this information!?

    Considering the majority of US States, one does not need any sort of license or permit to own a firearm, your point is rather moot. I even dare you to build your own firearm, it is rather satisfying to do actually. NO?..ok, well I do understand that in Australia, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law.

  32. oiaohm says:

    http://shop.shaw.ca/internet150
    http://www.shaw.ca/store/ Its on that page.

    http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/shaw-launches-wideopen-internet-150-ultra-fast-internet-speeds-priced-everyone-available-2142788.htm
    Response to competition.

    For someone that has been posting BS on this blog as long as you have, Ham-Bone sure knows much ado about nothing.
    Really it does not change the fact that your challenge was incorrect and poorly researched. Sorry you post way more BS than me.

    Also remember Carriers are known to roll out improved plans to long term existing customers before putting those plans up on the open market. ISP’s and miss leading websites seams to be international fact.

    If you had check what plans were advertised in the Winnipeg online paper the shaw 150 was in there as well before it was on their website.

    As I said you did not have a clue where to go and look to find out what plans are on offer. Always look most of a ISP website and also check the local paper of the area as not all plans are put on the ISP website(this is a international thing).

    In fact I listed the two companies why Shaw is increasing speed is to competitive against Rogers or Bell Aliant and to stop those eating into Shaw market area. Yes this was in fact covered in one of the Shaw press releases about the 150 speed.

    You recently claimed that Australians could not have pepper spray that is only a prohibited weapon meaning you need a permit to carry it. Your ability to do research and get things right is very slim.

    No I am calling idiot down does not have a clue where to-go to in fact see what ISP services are offered in a country or extract basic background information.
    This line of mine was because you Ham-Bone had not successfully got the list of plans Shaw in fact offered. So over 100Mbps is most of Canada now where physical connection is good enough.

    Of course you would go after me saying Ontario as a intentional mistake instead of seeing where you are complete moron.

  33. dougman says:

    “My guess by the speed numbers Robert is in Ontario. ”

    Your guess is wrong. Source: http://mrpogson.com/2012/08/12/this-fine-article-from-my-local-newspaper/

    For someone that has been posting BS on this blog as long as you have, Ham-Bone sure knows much ado about nothing.

  34. dougman wrote, “I seriously doubt the ISP that you use, is #1 offering 100MB service and #2 your connection will even begin to allow that. Shaw is probably who you use for service.”

    I just ran a speedtest through the old router. It shows 42 megabits/s. That’s with three PCs and a TV also on the same pipe. We have two cable modems, one for Internet and one for everything else but only one cable to the house. The new cable modem uses gigabit/s Ethernet ports. Our old modem is 10/100… The modem can be a router too but we’d have less control over it, so we have opted to set up our own router. Beast can do it easily as it has been a router to several school labs and even a whole school from time to time. Configuring Linux and iptables and DHCP are familiar to me.

    Shaw has a “wide open 150” plan which is nice in Year 1 but the price rises dramatically for Year 2… I have not discussed price with TLW. She likes to handle that stuff on her own. They do indeed promise “up to 150 megabits/s download speed”. We did hook up a gigabit/s Ethernet connection to a notebook and found symmetrical up/down which is interesting. I’ve rarely seen that.

    So, dougman’s doubts are unfounded/wrong/silly.

  35. oiaohm says:

    Ham-Dong as normal has no clue
    http://www.speedtest.net/awards/ca

    I would say by speeds is most like the cable ISP Rogers or Bell Aliant both in areas where shaw is not offered in CA. Both have unlimited plan at or above 100 mbps download speeds. My guess by the speed numbers Robert is in Ontario. What means I would bet is Rogers unlimited plan and remember Shaw is not an option in Ontario.

    So, ahem, I am calling BS.
    No I am calling idiot down does not have a clue where to-go to in fact see what ISP services are offered in a country or extract basic background information.

  36. dougman says:

    “We are in a rural area on cable. No gigabit/s here unless you pay a bundle.”

    I was referring to your LAN not THE ISP WAN.

    “just limited to 100 mbits/s, too slow for the ISP’s offered bandwidth.”

    I seriously doubt the ISP that you use, is #1 offering 100MB service and #2 your connection will even begin to allow that. Shaw is probably who you use for service.

    https://www.shaw.ca/internet/plans/

    The highest plan they offer is 60, but notice the dagger? Example: † At the bottom of the page, it explains: † Not all Shaw Internet packages and services are available in all regions. Connection speeds may vary based on modem equipment, building wiring, internet traffic and environmental conditions. “Up to” speeds are based on optimal conditions.

    So, ahem, I am calling BS.

  37. dougman says:

    “Outside of Dickensian novels, where some poor demented soul finally escapes from a debtor’s prison, I can’t think of a single solitary miser who beats you on the basic principle of cutting off your nose to spite your face.”

    LOL…. so colorful in description.

  38. DrLoser wrote, “those thousands of dollars that are rolling in, now that you are personally in charge of your own pension portfolio?”

    The $thousands are locked into a Registered Retirement Savings Plan. I cannot spend the money I’ve earned except by a rigid formula like x% of the balance on Dec. 31 – withholding / 12. So, the party’s at my place on January 31, 2017 if not sooner. Then I will be able to buy my wishlist in a month or two rather than taking the whole year to gratify my wishes. Top of my lists? No more trees! I have enough now and on order. I do have a lot of pots in which I might grow some flowers/vegetables. I planted ~2K marigolds this year in pots which was quite gratifying. I should have the lawn established by next year so I can plant proper flower-beds. I don’t know when “Cello” will be shipped but I will have one sooner or later unless a better product becomes available. Next year, I will easily be able to afford one that costs twice as much.

    Further, the current router is not dead, just limited to 100 mbits/s, too slow for the ISP’s offered bandwidth. I will keep the current router as wireless AP and use the new Beast as router. Why not? It will be on 24×7 and idling most of the time.

  39. DrLoser says:

    Your incredible cheapskate attitude never ceases to amaze me, Robert. It’s obviously the only reason you’re interested in Gnu/Linux/Free LOSS, since you clearly do not adhere to a single one of the four principles.
    Outside of Dickensian novels, where some poor demented soul finally escapes from a debtor’s prison, I can’t think of a single solitary miser who beats you on the basic principle of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
    You’re repurposing Beast for what? For saving a tiny portion of those thousands of dollars that are rolling in, now that you are personally in charge of your own pension portfolio?
    You’re a pathetic short-sighted old miser. A home router is of day-to-day importance. You want one that will work for five or ten years and won’t bust its caps or otherwise flake out. You want a proper solution.
    You might also consider the look of wonder and appreciation on the Little Woman’s face when she realises that, just for once, you have let the moths out of the wallet and forked out $45 for:
    https://www.amazon.com/Linksys-Wireless-Dual-Band-Anywhere-EA3500/dp/B007IL6OR2/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1474064233&sr=8-10&keywords=gigabit+router
    Or something like that.
    For reference, I forked out $25 the other day for an ADSL 100Mbps router for the 87 year old Serbian lady who ran the hotel I lived in. It lit up her face.
    You should try something like that. But I’m fairly sure such a gesture of humanity is entirely beyond you.
    Cheapskate.

  40. dougman wrote, “Why aren’t you already at GigE? It’s been available since like ten years ago.”

    We are in a rural area on cable. No gigabit/s here unless you pay a bundle. We have a gigabit LAN mostly, it’s just that the ISP bumped us from ~80 megabits/s to ~150 megabits/s. My new RAID can do 400 MB/s transfers, so that’s not a worry. That reminds me, I haven’t booted into it yet, and I haven’t finalized the layout either.

  41. dougman says:

    Why aren’t you already at GigE? It’s been available since like ten years ago.

    Traditional hard drives spin at rates between 5400 and 10000 revolutions per second, so you will only see between 25 and 100 megabytes per second of data transfer at best.

Leave a Reply