Why do you need that? A public cert tied to a domain is only so that *other people* can trust your cert due to a third party ca vouching for it... If it's your own server with your own cert, you can decide for yourself if you want to trust the self signed cert that you created.
A public cert is only useful if the site is available to the public.
An unbeatable force will not have any enemies, as attacking such a force would be suicide... Without enemies, the military budget will end up being slashed. Assuming this information is true, the reason is obvious - money. To keep military spending up, you need a credible enemy to "defend" against, and preferably you need some wars to use up resources and require the military to buy more.
Well according to state published recently (http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-share-breakdown-country-2017-2) , only 5 NATO countries are paying their fair share, and 4 of those are in europe.
It's also very much within US interests to have NATO allies in europe as they are closer to potential enemies (russia, the middle east etc). These countries can be used as staging points for the US to launch attacks, and will be the first to get hit when/if the enemy retaliates. The same happened during WW2, the US sent aircraft to the UK and used them to attack Germany, with no german bombs falling on the US.
The signature doesn't prove anything at all.. The retailer can always claim that *someone* was present at the time, they can then draw an arbitrary signature later.
The PIN proves that *someone* was present at the time of the transaction, *and* that they knew the correct PIN.
In a location where handguns are common, chances are the thieves will have them too, and are actually *more* likely to have one as a handgun can be used for the purposes of committing their crime.
And of course if you shoot someone before they have taken aggressive action against you, then chances are you will go to jail, but if you wait until he draws his gun first you might be too late and get shot.
You're better off handing over the card to a thief, and then immediately call the police and card issuer to report what happened. You're not liable for any transactions which take place after you've reported the card stolen even if the thief knows the pin.
You can't prove anything of the sort... Whenever i'm expected to sign, i just make a random mark on the paper or pad, if someone else did the same there would be no way to tell. If you sign the back of the card and try to make the same mark every time, someone committing fraud can just copy what's on the back of the card.
A pin proves that you know the pin, it doesn't prove who you are. It's like a password, and is a relatively weak form of authentication - a signature provides no authentication at all.
If there's no easy way to procure them, people will find a difficult way. Drugs have been illegal for years, and yet there are many black market sources of them and many users. Also there are so many otherwise legal items that can easily be repurposed into weapons, you will end up banning so many things that you massively inconvenience law abiding citizens.
These groups were both very "pissed off', the nazis for instance got a lot of public support because of the punitive terms imposed on them after their defeat during WW1.
You don't need a huge amount of casing for a few kg of black powder, and these groups do generally have access to far more powerful explosives too.
Depending what the target is, you don't need a hugely powerful explosive anyway.. A small one capable of launching ball bearings at high speed (which seems to be what they used) is enough to kill or injure soldiers, and enough to damage equipment like planes. Soldiers are also less likely to be wearing body armor if you take them by surprise at their base.
A small bomb like this could easily damage an aircraft thats sitting on the ground, not enough to destroy it but enough to keep it grounded and consume resources while it gets repaired.
Also injuring a soldier is more effective than killing one, an injured soldier becomes a liability as they have to provide medical treatment. A dead soldier requires far less resources.
If you can drop a $50 bomb and cause $5000 worth of damage then it's a successful attack.
While bombs like this would likely be totally ineffective against tanks or other armored equipment, aircraft which are parked on the ground could easily be damaged by such weapons as they are generally much less armored (due to weight concerns).
You may still not be able to destroy a plane with a weapon like this, but you can damage it which then requires time and money to repair. Chances are the cost of repairing even minor damage to a modern military aircraft will far exceed the cost of these drones.
There's usually an effective counter strategy for anything... You need the element of surprise to pull something like this off, and once you did it once it couldn't be done again so it might not be worth the investment not only to develop the system, but also keep it secret for long enough so you could use it against a single enemy...
A lot of people are criticising how cheaply made these drones were, but simplicity is genius... The amount spent by the Russians to shoot these drones down must have vastly exceeded the cost to build and launch the drones, not to mention the cost of repairing/replacing anything that the drones managed to hit. If you can spend $50 and cause your enemy to waste $500 repelling your attack then you've achieved a successful result.
The drones didn't have cameras, but assuming they did - how would the footage have got back to the drone operators? Chances are the Russians would be jamming any transmissions, and if the drone was programmed to fly back with recorded footage the Russians could follow it and attack whoever came to collect the footage.
As for a lack of GPS, there are plenty of other ways to navigate especially if you know where the target is, the nazis had flying bombs which were built to just run out of fuel and crash onto london.
These drones look like they were built to be cheap, easily/quickly manufactured and disposable. Modern militaries are typically set up to fight similar forces, they will need to adjust their strategy to deal with this kind of threat.
If the malware is already installed, then its in their interest to ensure your system gets updates so it's less likely to get infected by any competing malware...
Not sure what technology you're using there, but in the case of DSL for instance if you were to force it to sync at a lower rate you'd generally get greater stability... If you can have an unstable 6-7mb you can probably get a stable 5mb.
Although cases like these are why i prefer to download rather than stream, i can let a download take place over night and it's ready to watch in the morning - even in high definition, which a slow connection would have no chance of streaming.
If a large number of miners from china go offline all at once, in the short term the block rate will drop until the difficulty adjusts downwards... Although it will mean increased profit for those mining outside china.
Why intentionally sacrifice performance? Todays processors may be many thousands of times faster than the early ones, but it doesn't make sense to then slow them down with overweight inefficient code.
Performance and efficiency is still very important, slow code costs money in extra execution time, increased power consumption, increased hardware requirements, especially at large scale. Code which is 10% slower running on a single user's desktop might not make much of a difference, but run that code across thousands of systems or run thousands of instances of it and you've got huge wastage.
Well in that respect Alpha (FX!32) and PowerPC (VirtualPC) had much better x86 emulation, which is tried and tested...
Alternative architectures will never shine so long as people are trying to run alien binaries on them... Emulation will always carry overhead, resulting in inferior performance and inferior battery life.
That said, the playing field is levelling... The Android runtime is theoretically cross platform, so many apps will run just fine irrespective of the underlying architecture, and a lot of software is now delivered via a browser or a connection to a remote server... And of course anything that is open source can be fairly painlessly ported to a new architecture, and indeed all the mentioned architectures already have mature Linux and/or BSD ports and a full suite of software available.
Alpha had the same issues to a much lesser extent, it was also around longer so compilers had more time to mature on the platform, and it was so much faster than other processors available at the time that inefficient code was less noticeable.
With a fresh start some baggage can be left behind, eg 64bit x86 software generally makes use of SSE2 as the lowest common denominator become the first Opteron chip instead of a 386, but even a first gen Opteron is pretty dated these days.
Gentoo users experience a small but worthwhile increase in performance by compiling their code with the correct -march/-mcpu flags irrespective of any other optimizations they might be using, there is also a linux kernel patch that enables such flags for kernel compiles. And this is on x86 where intel/amd go to great lengths to make the processors able to execute older code quickly. There would likely be a bigger difference on other architectures.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you need that?
A public cert tied to a domain is only so that *other people* can trust your cert due to a third party ca vouching for it...
If it's your own server with your own cert, you can decide for yourself if you want to trust the self signed cert that you created.
A public cert is only useful if the site is available to the public.
An unbeatable force will not have any enemies, as attacking such a force would be suicide... Without enemies, the military budget will end up being slashed.
Assuming this information is true, the reason is obvious - money.
To keep military spending up, you need a credible enemy to "defend" against, and preferably you need some wars to use up resources and require the military to buy more.
Well 3 years ago they claimed they would have something "in 5 years"... That gives them 2 more years before their claim can be proven false.
Well according to state published recently (http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-share-breakdown-country-2017-2)
, only 5 NATO countries are paying their fair share, and 4 of those are in europe.
It's also very much within US interests to have NATO allies in europe as they are closer to potential enemies (russia, the middle east etc). These countries can be used as staging points for the US to launch attacks, and will be the first to get hit when/if the enemy retaliates.
The same happened during WW2, the US sent aircraft to the UK and used them to attack Germany, with no german bombs falling on the US.
The signature doesn't prove anything at all..
The retailer can always claim that *someone* was present at the time, they can then draw an arbitrary signature later.
The PIN proves that *someone* was present at the time of the transaction, *and* that they knew the correct PIN.
In a location where handguns are common, chances are the thieves will have them too, and are actually *more* likely to have one as a handgun can be used for the purposes of committing their crime.
And of course if you shoot someone before they have taken aggressive action against you, then chances are you will go to jail, but if you wait until he draws his gun first you might be too late and get shot.
You're better off handing over the card to a thief, and then immediately call the police and card issuer to report what happened. You're not liable for any transactions which take place after you've reported the card stolen even if the thief knows the pin.
If the merchant hasn't got a signature on the card receipt they can just draw one on there themselves. It means absolutely nothing.
You can't prove anything of the sort...
Whenever i'm expected to sign, i just make a random mark on the paper or pad, if someone else did the same there would be no way to tell.
If you sign the back of the card and try to make the same mark every time, someone committing fraud can just copy what's on the back of the card.
A pin proves that you know the pin, it doesn't prove who you are. It's like a password, and is a relatively weak form of authentication - a signature provides no authentication at all.
Well needing 10% of their resources is better than needing 100%, you have to be frugal in war especially when fighting a superior enemy.
If there's no easy way to procure them, people will find a difficult way. Drugs have been illegal for years, and yet there are many black market sources of them and many users.
Also there are so many otherwise legal items that can easily be repurposed into weapons, you will end up banning so many things that you massively inconvenience law abiding citizens.
These groups were both very "pissed off', the nazis for instance got a lot of public support because of the punitive terms imposed on them after their defeat during WW1.
You don't need a huge amount of casing for a few kg of black powder, and these groups do generally have access to far more powerful explosives too.
Depending what the target is, you don't need a hugely powerful explosive anyway.. A small one capable of launching ball bearings at high speed (which seems to be what they used) is enough to kill or injure soldiers, and enough to damage equipment like planes. Soldiers are also less likely to be wearing body armor if you take them by surprise at their base.
A small bomb like this could easily damage an aircraft thats sitting on the ground, not enough to destroy it but enough to keep it grounded and consume resources while it gets repaired.
Also injuring a soldier is more effective than killing one, an injured soldier becomes a liability as they have to provide medical treatment. A dead soldier requires far less resources.
If you can drop a $50 bomb and cause $5000 worth of damage then it's a successful attack.
While bombs like this would likely be totally ineffective against tanks or other armored equipment, aircraft which are parked on the ground could easily be damaged by such weapons as they are generally much less armored (due to weight concerns).
You may still not be able to destroy a plane with a weapon like this, but you can damage it which then requires time and money to repair. Chances are the cost of repairing even minor damage to a modern military aircraft will far exceed the cost of these drones.
There's usually an effective counter strategy for anything... You need the element of surprise to pull something like this off, and once you did it once it couldn't be done again so it might not be worth the investment not only to develop the system, but also keep it secret for long enough so you could use it against a single enemy...
A lot of people are criticising how cheaply made these drones were, but simplicity is genius...
The amount spent by the Russians to shoot these drones down must have vastly exceeded the cost to build and launch the drones, not to mention the cost of repairing/replacing anything that the drones managed to hit. If you can spend $50 and cause your enemy to waste $500 repelling your attack then you've achieved a successful result.
The drones didn't have cameras, but assuming they did - how would the footage have got back to the drone operators? Chances are the Russians would be jamming any transmissions, and if the drone was programmed to fly back with recorded footage the Russians could follow it and attack whoever came to collect the footage.
As for a lack of GPS, there are plenty of other ways to navigate especially if you know where the target is, the nazis had flying bombs which were built to just run out of fuel and crash onto london.
These drones look like they were built to be cheap, easily/quickly manufactured and disposable. Modern militaries are typically set up to fight similar forces, they will need to adjust their strategy to deal with this kind of threat.
But where do you see the terms of the agreement before you've accessed the webserver?
Also if they have publicly advertised the website anywhere, could that not be taken as authorisation?
If the malware is already installed, then its in their interest to ensure your system gets updates so it's less likely to get infected by any competing malware...
Not sure what technology you're using there, but in the case of DSL for instance if you were to force it to sync at a lower rate you'd generally get greater stability... If you can have an unstable 6-7mb you can probably get a stable 5mb.
Although cases like these are why i prefer to download rather than stream, i can let a download take place over night and it's ready to watch in the morning - even in high definition, which a slow connection would have no chance of streaming.
Mining will inherently end up centralised wherever power is available the cheapest...
If a large number of miners from china go offline all at once, in the short term the block rate will drop until the difficulty adjusts downwards...
Although it will mean increased profit for those mining outside china.
Why intentionally sacrifice performance? Todays processors may be many thousands of times faster than the early ones, but it doesn't make sense to then slow them down with overweight inefficient code.
Performance and efficiency is still very important, slow code costs money in extra execution time, increased power consumption, increased hardware requirements, especially at large scale. Code which is 10% slower running on a single user's desktop might not make much of a difference, but run that code across thousands of systems or run thousands of instances of it and you've got huge wastage.
Well in that respect Alpha (FX!32) and PowerPC (VirtualPC) had much better x86 emulation, which is tried and tested...
Alternative architectures will never shine so long as people are trying to run alien binaries on them... Emulation will always carry overhead, resulting in inferior performance and inferior battery life.
That said, the playing field is levelling... The Android runtime is theoretically cross platform, so many apps will run just fine irrespective of the underlying architecture, and a lot of software is now delivered via a browser or a connection to a remote server...
And of course anything that is open source can be fairly painlessly ported to a new architecture, and indeed all the mentioned architectures already have mature Linux and/or BSD ports and a full suite of software available.
Alpha had the same issues to a much lesser extent, it was also around longer so compilers had more time to mature on the platform, and it was so much faster than other processors available at the time that inefficient code was less noticeable.
With a fresh start some baggage can be left behind, eg 64bit x86 software generally makes use of SSE2 as the lowest common denominator become the first Opteron chip instead of a 386, but even a first gen Opteron is pretty dated these days.
Gentoo users experience a small but worthwhile increase in performance by compiling their code with the correct -march/-mcpu flags irrespective of any other optimizations they might be using, there is also a linux kernel patch that enables such flags for kernel compiles. And this is on x86 where intel/amd go to great lengths to make the processors able to execute older code quickly. There would likely be a bigger difference on other architectures.
Mine too, but with a 68040... I still have a couple of amigas which can dual boot into linux, and even have a gentoo install running on a 50mhz 68060.
Can you not compile them to run on a non SSE2 system?
I've used firefox successfully on non x86 processors which clearly don't have SSE2 support.