u/evermorex76

I had this idea and I wondered whether it would be feasible, or desired by enough travelers to make it worthwhile to airlines or the TSA. It's for them to provide a lock-box that can be put in your carry-on at your origin airport and removed at the destination, for a fee, to allow you to take items on-board like blades or pointed items (thinking toolkits to technicians) or even guns. Many people travel light and aren't checking a bag and doing so just for such an item that they need at the destination is silly, especially if there's a checked-bag fee, or they don't want to risk a checked bag being lost on the way, and if you're just on an overnight or short trip you don't have a lot of luggage. (Of course they're heading towards fees for even a carry-on bag or just allowing anything at all aside from a personal item for some fares, but this service could be permitted as a separate item. The fee would have to be less than just checking a bag, though.)

I was thinking when you book your ticket, you add the option to get a lock-box. You check in at the security office or airline desk when you get there. They open a box, you put your stuff in, they lock it and it goes in your carry-on. This would require the agent to verify the contents aren't something that would be dangerous even in the box, like flammable/explosive or a loose battery. You have no access to the contents, and it's a reasonably strong container so you couldn't just break it open during the flight. There'd be a size limit of course so it wouldn't work for everything. At your destination you go back to the desk and they unlock the box. It's done with electronic locks of course, controlled with a computer connection assuming they can make it super-secure so people couldn't hack it, or a really secure physical lock and key that can't be picked, or combination, or an electronic number pad. (16-digit combination? 24? So they can't try every combination during the flight. Electronic pad could prevent trying many in a short time. Changed with every use.)

Potentially they could be sold at retail, certified with a way for the security/airline desk to verify it and then set the security, like TSA-approved padlocks that they can unlock. Again would need to be done so that nobody could fake the certification, and adds work for the agent and TSA and airlines certainly don't want to have to have more people working.

I don't know if it would be really popular, but for some people it would be very useful. I worked as an IT tech and sometimes had to make trips on short notice where I would need tools. A cheap screwdriver can be picked up on the way to the site after landing, or already be available on-site, but many of the tools I might need would be unlikely for a site to have and cost hundreds of dollars (with no way of knowing if I'd need them), and overnighting the kit would be just as expensive and might be unnecessary if I didn't need those tools. I didn't end up ever having a problem, being allowed to carry some small items in my bag and then the sites having others, but that was due to the type of sites in those cases and wouldn't always be true. Other people might be the type that likes to have their gun with them and be traveling to a place where they'd be permitted to carry it (and that type would be very likely to be willing to pay for this service).

Given the extra work for the TSA or the airline, I'm not sure if the volume of customers would actually make this able to break even financially, let alone be profitable, without making it stupidly expensive to the customer and reducing the number of people who'd use it.

I was having an issue with this site not auto-filling or giving the selection drop-down by BitWarden.

https://www.express-scripts.com/login

I did get it working, by unchecking the "remember my login information" box. For some reason, having the username saved in the cookie and pre-filled made BitWarden not auto-fill the password or give a drop-down for either field, and instead only bring up the auto-generated password selection.

While I was looking for the cause of auto-fill failing I read about devs using HTML to prevent auto-fill by password managers (including browsers). I looked at the code and found autocomplete="new-password" which is apparently used to prevent auto-fill because it makes the password manager think you're creating a new password instead of entering an existing one. But what I read said that this was not foolproof. Does it not always work because password managers don't always honor that assumption that it's a new password? Why does removing the pre-filled username let BW go ahead and show the selection drop-down? (It still doesn't allow it to auto-fill, though.) Other sites where the username is saved still auto-fill and/or show the drop-down.

Could BW (and others) just ignore it and always show the selection list, or auto-fill if there's a single match? Would more people benefit from having auto-fill always work as expected and not cause confusion with the password generator appearing than benefit from having the password generator pop up for new passwords but have to do extra work every single other time they log into any site that uses that trick to prevent auto-fill? Meaning, it seems like wanting auto-fill to work to log in happens a lot more often than the number of times someone needs a new password generated. Right now, having to manually fill happens more often than people expect and it's hard to figure out why if you're not knowledgeable, and less often someone saves a few seconds by not having to click to open the password generator manually. Needing to manually open the password generator wouldn't be particularly confusing, as most wouldn't expect it to automatically appear if they just started using a password manager.

Maybe it could be an option? I know I'm being very particular about it and overthinking.

Not a big thing and nobody here may actually have any idea or care, but I just updated HWiNFO64 and saw that it's now referred to as "HWiNFO® 64" in every location, including the installer and in the software itself and on the website, in every instance. Even the Start Menu folder and shortcut names default to including the ® sign, although the program folder name doesn't. I get wanting to make "HWiNFO" a registered mark, but that was never actually the software's name. It was always referred to HWiNFO64 (or HWiNFO32), even in the software, so it seems odd to now split it up. Maybe registration is cheaper than two to cover the 32-bit and 64-bit versions? Registering it as HWiNFO64 (and HWiNFO32) would have been sufficient, unless they plan on making other "HWiNFO" products, as anyone creating something like "HWiNFO System Details" or even "HWiNFO Bitmap Maker" would still clearly be violating the mark by using a name where the non-generic part is largely the same, and it's is in the same product category, computer software. Yes you'd have to send a cease and desist notice and maybe sue, but there's nothing to make that less likely with the new format.

It's also weird to put that format even on the name of the software displayed within the application window and title bar, as well as the certificate or whatever Windows reads to pop up the UAC prompt. You generally wouldn't need to include it in the actual product in such locations. From a legal standpoint, the ® symbol isn't part of the actual software name. That is just an appended mark to indicate it's been registered, and is used in places where it might not be clear that what is being discussed is registered and you want it to be very clear, like a press release or marketing or legal documents. Having it be displayed in a font where it's the same size as other letters (the actual software opening window) also just looks really awkward. It just makes the name look weird to see the ® mark in every single location with the name shown, including places where it isn't necessary and is not commonly shown. The company's own website doesn't need it. Even Windows doesn't show "Microsoft® Windows®" everywhere you find the name.

So, just wonder if anybody knows why it would be displayed like that now but never was before? It's really just jarring to me to see it.