Mon, 14 Jun 2004

Ducks In A Row

There is a beautiful, beautiful rant from Ben Hammersley well into the comments of something a bit more substantive than the usual Orange vs. Blue shenanigans.

Ignore the specious aspersions being cast upon Ben’s professional integrity and parentage from the expected directions and listen to the imminently sensible things he’s saying.

:: 13:37
:: /tech/computers/internet | [+]
::Comments (0)

Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
The Magic Word:
Which planet is closest to the sun? (hint -- it's Mercury...)




“A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the
last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security
or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discus-
sion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a
premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fal-
lacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more
than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew
a good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among them-
selves, as they have lately done. If a lock — let it have been made in what-
ever country, or by whatever maker — is not so inviolable as it has hitherto
been deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of *honest* persons to know
this fact, because the *dishonest* are tolerably certain to be the first to
apply the knowledge practically; and the spread of knowledge is necessary to
give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance. It cannot be too ear-
nestly urged, that an acquaintance with real facts will, in the end, be better
for all parties.”
— Charles Tomlinson’s Rudimentary Treatise on the Construction of Locks,
published around 1850