It is secure against a passive evesdropper, but not an active MITM able to modify as well as intercept communications. Such an attacker could simply impersonate both parties to communicate with the other.
It's secure against a passive evesdropper. It isn't secure against an active MITM, able to modify traffic as well as intercept. Such an attacker can easily just impersonate both parties.
It does make interception of communications much more expensive and detectable though, potentially making mass-interception prohibitively expensive.
And we could stop global warming if everyone in the world agreed to replace their car with a bicycle, stop taking holidays and buy a dressing gown rather than heat their homes. A solution is not a solution if you've little prospect of convincing people to go along with it.
You skip over the problem - exchanging public keys. If the channel isn't secure then what is there to stop an attacker from intercepting the keys in transit and replacing them with his own? You need to have either a secure channel for key exchange or a pre-shared secret. Neither of which is an option when you just want to view a website you've never visited before over SSL.
Almost. Such an encryption protects entirely against passive interception, but has a serious weakness: MITM attacks. There are only two ways to solve this problem. One is to pre-exchange keys over a secure channel. That's fine for connecting to the company VPN and such situations when someone has to physically set up the endpoints, but it's not a lot of use on the internet. The other is to have a trusted third party provide confirmation of identity, and in turn authenticate this third party by keys exchanged over a secure channel. It's a really ugly method (Can you *really* trust any of those CAs? Of course not!) but as of now, it's the only option there is. Some protocols rely on a web-of-trust system, but again it isn't suitable for all situations, particually those in which nodes are many and connections infrequent and transient.
What they need is something with a really good acronym. Something that everyone would want to support and none would dare oppose. 'PATRIOT' act would be a good one, if it hadn't already been used for that purpose.
Caught salmon is expensive, and fish stocks are already in a state of near-crisis. If the choice is between inferior salmon or no salmon at all, make do.
That... that may be called K'nex. It may be manufactured by the k'nex company. But I refuse to accept that as K'nex. It looks like they've done the same things this topic is criticising Lego for: Taking out the freeform construction in favor of prefabricated sections.
Ultracaps have their niches. I recall that China has one public vehicle project powered entirely by ultracaps - it can drive for a whole twenty miles on a single charge. As the vehicle is a bus, that works out very well: It just charges up from a pantograph at every bus-stop. I've also seen them used in bicycle safety lights and regenerative breaking in electric cars. They don't pack anything like the energy density of a battery, but they are just far more reliable and long-lasting. Unlike batteries, ultracaps don't care how you store them and they don't lose capacity with age.
Are we talking about the same toy? The k'nex I knew didn't use bricks or minifigures at all. It was based around rods and various pieces to connect said rods together. The focus wasn't on making realistic-looking models but on kinetic aspects, thus the K in the name. Almost all K'nex models involve moving parts.
I moved from Lego to K'nex. Less in the way of advanced pieces like pneumatics and electronics - well, none at all - but the basic blocks were made for mechanics with many forms of pivot, shaft, pully and wheel. I made a mechanical four-bit adder.
The show carefully avoids going into detail about how this artificial gravity works. Some episodes reveal that there is a point in every ship where the gravity is effectively zero, and as the ship isn't being constantly accelerated it could be concluded that the field is a zero-sum process: Half the ship does have gravity reversed compared to the other half. Presumably the turbolifts flip over when you cross the transition.
Or it could be that the artificial gravity exists purely because filming apparent weightlessness costs a fortune, and the writers don't really care about the technology involved. Star trek has never been hard science fiction - the fantastic settings, alien cultures and futuristic technology are used at their best to explore current issues, taken to a place where they can be examined from the perspective of an outsider.
There doesn't even need to be a win condition. Some of the classic games go on forever - pacman, tetris. The objective is to either maximise a score or keep the game going as long as possible.
I'm examining my pi now. The tallest things on the board, at roughly equal height, are the ethernet and USB ports. As the enclosure size is determined by the tallest component, it'd be pointless replacing anything else with (probably more expensive) lower-profile parts unless these can also be shortened. The USB could, with some rearranging, possibly be replaced by two side-by-side rather than stacked - but the ethernet port is an inherently tall connector. It's not getting any slimmer without losing the ethernet, which would be a serious loss of functionality.
If you want a really low-profile pi, go warm up the soldering iron. Aside from the HDMI, the connectors all look like they wouldn't be too difficult to remove so you can solder cables directly to the board.
Short range can be plenty, if your only aim is to carry out an ambush and buy a few minutes of extra time. As for missiles... oh, that's just asking for some fun. Simply ask a group of local children to play somewhere near the jamming device. If the US forces do attack it, they'll only end up killing children, which is sure to rally some more support for your cause.
I'm thinking of Iraq-like insurgency scenarios: High-tech US forces with far superior equipment, but against an enemy much more familiar with the local culture and in urban areas where a high civilian population rules out the 'bomb first, ask later' approach. I could throw together a short-range denial jammer for the 2.4GHz band with ease, but jamming anywhere else would be harder due to the difficulty of obtaining an appropriate magnetron.
The jammer could just jam every frequency at once. The use of software-defined radio would complicate the task though, as high-power wideband transmitters are tricky things to build compared to your basic narrow transmitter. The attacker would probably be best of finding an old-school radar engineer who knows how to build a few magnatons. They are simple enough to build in a garage (Getting the air out is the trickiest part), but can transmit a ridiculous amount of power and over a very wide spectrum. That's how microwave ovens are so good at jamming wireless LANs.
It's a deliberatly technical name for what the common people call 'tides.' There was a strange tendency for starships to get nearly pulled apart by it, which suggests either those ships are a lot bigger than they look or someone (Q?) has been going around stuffing planets with small black holes as a joke.
The 'Turn up to eleven' approach could work for stationary equipment, but it isn't practical for things like field radios - which are exactly the sort of thing that a hostile force may want to jam prior to and during an ambush, to keep the targets from calling for backup.
Slashdot Mirror
It is secure against a passive evesdropper, but not an active MITM able to modify as well as intercept communications. Such an attacker could simply impersonate both parties to communicate with the other.
It's secure against a passive evesdropper. It isn't secure against an active MITM, able to modify traffic as well as intercept. Such an attacker can easily just impersonate both parties.
It does make interception of communications much more expensive and detectable though, potentially making mass-interception prohibitively expensive.
And we could stop global warming if everyone in the world agreed to replace their car with a bicycle, stop taking holidays and buy a dressing gown rather than heat their homes. A solution is not a solution if you've little prospect of convincing people to go along with it.
You skip over the problem - exchanging public keys. If the channel isn't secure then what is there to stop an attacker from intercepting the keys in transit and replacing them with his own? You need to have either a secure channel for key exchange or a pre-shared secret. Neither of which is an option when you just want to view a website you've never visited before over SSL.
Almost. Such an encryption protects entirely against passive interception, but has a serious weakness: MITM attacks. There are only two ways to solve this problem. One is to pre-exchange keys over a secure channel. That's fine for connecting to the company VPN and such situations when someone has to physically set up the endpoints, but it's not a lot of use on the internet. The other is to have a trusted third party provide confirmation of identity, and in turn authenticate this third party by keys exchanged over a secure channel. It's a really ugly method (Can you *really* trust any of those CAs? Of course not!) but as of now, it's the only option there is. Some protocols rely on a web-of-trust system, but again it isn't suitable for all situations, particually those in which nodes are many and connections infrequent and transient.
What they need is something with a really good acronym. Something that everyone would want to support and none would dare oppose. 'PATRIOT' act would be a good one, if it hadn't already been used for that purpose.
Tried it. That's why fish stocks are in near-crisis.
Caught salmon is expensive, and fish stocks are already in a state of near-crisis. If the choice is between inferior salmon or no salmon at all, make do.
That... that may be called K'nex. It may be manufactured by the k'nex company. But I refuse to accept that as K'nex. It looks like they've done the same things this topic is criticising Lego for: Taking out the freeform construction in favor of prefabricated sections.
Ultracaps have their niches. I recall that China has one public vehicle project powered entirely by ultracaps - it can drive for a whole twenty miles on a single charge. As the vehicle is a bus, that works out very well: It just charges up from a pantograph at every bus-stop. I've also seen them used in bicycle safety lights and regenerative breaking in electric cars. They don't pack anything like the energy density of a battery, but they are just far more reliable and long-lasting. Unlike batteries, ultracaps don't care how you store them and they don't lose capacity with age.
Are we talking about the same toy? The k'nex I knew didn't use bricks or minifigures at all. It was based around rods and various pieces to connect said rods together. The focus wasn't on making realistic-looking models but on kinetic aspects, thus the K in the name. Almost all K'nex models involve moving parts.
This stuff: http://www.toysrus.co.uk/Toys-R-Us/Toys/Construction/KNex-Ferris-Wheel(0088543)
If the vvenom is a nice simple single gene, you could probably stick it in some bacteria. Worked for insulin.
If you need to get a whole chemical pathway copied, it's not so easy,
I wouldn't worry about it. Given how expensive the venom is, any skin creme that uses it is going to be diluting to homeopathic levels anyway.
A bee colony functions as a superorganism. Natural selection happens at the level of colonies, not individual bees.
It would be more accurate to say the people on the internet interpret censorship as damage. People are a lot smarter than routers.
They really are that dumb. The 'maker generation' is just a very small minority.
I moved from Lego to K'nex. Less in the way of advanced pieces like pneumatics and electronics - well, none at all - but the basic blocks were made for mechanics with many forms of pivot, shaft, pully and wheel. I made a mechanical four-bit adder.
The show carefully avoids going into detail about how this artificial gravity works. Some episodes reveal that there is a point in every ship where the gravity is effectively zero, and as the ship isn't being constantly accelerated it could be concluded that the field is a zero-sum process: Half the ship does have gravity reversed compared to the other half. Presumably the turbolifts flip over when you cross the transition.
Or it could be that the artificial gravity exists purely because filming apparent weightlessness costs a fortune, and the writers don't really care about the technology involved. Star trek has never been hard science fiction - the fantastic settings, alien cultures and futuristic technology are used at their best to explore current issues, taken to a place where they can be examined from the perspective of an outsider.
There doesn't even need to be a win condition. Some of the classic games go on forever - pacman, tetris. The objective is to either maximise a score or keep the game going as long as possible.
I'm examining my pi now. The tallest things on the board, at roughly equal height, are the ethernet and USB ports. As the enclosure size is determined by the tallest component, it'd be pointless replacing anything else with (probably more expensive) lower-profile parts unless these can also be shortened. The USB could, with some rearranging, possibly be replaced by two side-by-side rather than stacked - but the ethernet port is an inherently tall connector. It's not getting any slimmer without losing the ethernet, which would be a serious loss of functionality.
If you want a really low-profile pi, go warm up the soldering iron. Aside from the HDMI, the connectors all look like they wouldn't be too difficult to remove so you can solder cables directly to the board.
Short range can be plenty, if your only aim is to carry out an ambush and buy a few minutes of extra time. As for missiles... oh, that's just asking for some fun. Simply ask a group of local children to play somewhere near the jamming device. If the US forces do attack it, they'll only end up killing children, which is sure to rally some more support for your cause.
I'm thinking of Iraq-like insurgency scenarios: High-tech US forces with far superior equipment, but against an enemy much more familiar with the local culture and in urban areas where a high civilian population rules out the 'bomb first, ask later' approach. I could throw together a short-range denial jammer for the 2.4GHz band with ease, but jamming anywhere else would be harder due to the difficulty of obtaining an appropriate magnetron.
You work on making the drones work without communications. How hard can it be to make a program for 'Fly here. Shoot missile here. Return here.'?
The jammer could just jam every frequency at once. The use of software-defined radio would complicate the task though, as high-power wideband transmitters are tricky things to build compared to your basic narrow transmitter. The attacker would probably be best of finding an old-school radar engineer who knows how to build a few magnatons. They are simple enough to build in a garage (Getting the air out is the trickiest part), but can transmit a ridiculous amount of power and over a very wide spectrum. That's how microwave ovens are so good at jamming wireless LANs.
My favorite was 'gravimetric sheer.'
It's a deliberatly technical name for what the common people call 'tides.' There was a strange tendency for starships to get nearly pulled apart by it, which suggests either those ships are a lot bigger than they look or someone (Q?) has been going around stuffing planets with small black holes as a joke.
The 'Turn up to eleven' approach could work for stationary equipment, but it isn't practical for things like field radios - which are exactly the sort of thing that a hostile force may want to jam prior to and during an ambush, to keep the targets from calling for backup.