There is some confusion here, Please first refer to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_color and to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_filter
Actually, butterfly wing-scales are the color of the underlying wing cells that produce the scales (and not blue, etc..) The scales are actually not blue, they are probably the color of butterfly skin cells.
The intense powder blue colors observed in butterfly scales are caused by Optical Interference Filter phenomenons in the microscopic slits in the surface of the scales *only* and not from a pigment or dye. Think of it as a mirror that adsorbs light in all optical wavelengths and reflects only the shades of blue observed. If you were to shine light of different wavelengths like pure green or red, the wings would be appear dark or mostly black as they absorb wavelengths of light that are not those specific to those shades of blue light they reflect.
Traditional colors (in most things we see daily) are caused by pigments and dyes (subtractive color) or from CRT/LCD/Plasma display RGB techniques (additive color).
This 'new' technology using "Femtosecond Lasers" creates precise cuts in the surface of metals (or other substances), to create these precise interference pattern slits to produce brilliant colors. These slits act as a slit interference light reflector/absorber as they brightly reflect specific wavelengths like a selective mirror and adsorb others. This method is vastly more efficient than colored subtractive filters and therefore produce colors far more intense than any pigment or dye could produce.
All butterfly and moth scales are made of non-living insect cuticle. Insect cuticle comes from epithelial cells and is made up of chitin and protein. These Chitins and Proteins are not necessarily colored or pigmented. Their observed 'colors' virtually all come from their nano-scale *structures* which have microscopic optical interference reflectors/absorbers. Some insects use these 'scales' to very efficiently absorb light to stay warm in sunlight and the light reflected is very brilliant and is essentially a mirror to particular wavelengths.
The important thing FTA is that now mankind has learned how to use lasers to be able to modify the surface of metal substrates (of whatever native 'color') to adsorb and reflect specific wavelengths of light in the visual range. This can be used to make better coatings and even better camouflage. The USAF already uses similar technology in their "stealth paint" with radar-adsorbing interference filtering "stuff" in the paint itself (as well as the shape). This new technology reads to me to to be a good step in the direction of daylight stealth and camouflage, but just like the butterfly wings. Once touched or structurally affected, the surface structure changes and so does the color absorption/reflection. This is why it is very necessary to carefully clean stealth aircraft just before missions, otherwise combustion particles, dust, etc.. can reflect radar and defeat some of the paint's stealth properties. This would have a similar optical effect on the "Femtosecond Laser-colored Metals" referred FTA.
IMHO, I respectfully disagree. Any propulsion system other than Nuclear would just not be very feasible for extended undersea cable tapping operations and Seal incursions, etc...
The USS Jimmy Carter's battery of 50 Tomahawk (nuclear warhead capable) cruise *missiles* are deterrence in my opinion. (But conventional warhead Tomahawks are scary as well.)
To also modify a nuclear submarine design to be 100 feet longer in order to accommodate more Seal Teams & "gear" is also deterrence. Deterrence is a matter of opinion though.
Strictly speaking, yes, only boomers (SSBN's) have ICBM capabilities. But to me, the USS Jimmy Carter's *known* capabilities are formidable and would certainly deter me (were I a US adversary) from provoking the United States further (especially if intelligence told me it was hiding somewhere off my coast and I had recently severely pissed-off the US.)
I thought about the bait-and-switch database possibility. There would have to be a non-volatile record taken at the time of voting (kept for recounts and encoded, encrypted, etc..) And that would match information in the "voting receipt" about the voting choices. "Trust' in the NSA's confirmation site that one could verify with their receipt would also be required. Running the system on open-source software and encryption that whose source code is easily attainable by the community might assist security of and its development.
Minds far wiser have pondered this issue for some time. Paper ballots DO appear to be the best solution for reasons not immediately apparent. If only the ACLU could see this too.
I get what you are saying about the potential for vote buying... and it is a Valid point.
But as a voter, that is so much less of a fear to me than the ability for someone or an entity to be able to electronically rig an election (if not just part).
Allowing the voter to lookup to "verify" their vote choices *after the fact* is the point!
How do I know if my vote was electronically changed to a different choice than the one I made? Buy looking it up!
Using statistics to prove a system is secure sure sounds like telling an individual their vote does not count. I want to look mine up! After all the money spent on political ads and other advertising, there's no way for a specific voter to vbe able to verify their vote? Even my local cable company can look up mt account and verify what choices I made on my channel and data plan selections. I have had some of those changed without mt permission, I verified my choices and resolved the error. Verification is key to trust.
Now if someone or some entity is paying others for their votes and they want to use the 'verification' system to prove who they voted for... that's abuse and is already against the law in the US.
If I can account for my exact 'choices' and 'values' made at precise times and locations with a simple credit card receipt NOW, why not for my electronic vote!!!??
There is a real reason we do not have an accountable system in place. What could it be?
Furthermore, we need to verify identity with a fingerprint (or other not-exclusive-to-an-ID-Card biometric information) when we vote to ensure multiple voting abuses do not take place. Wait a minute... I do this *already* with my fingerprint whenever I cash a check at my local bank.. Why not for voting too??
Voting IS a National Security issue and therefore falls under the territorial umbrella of the NSA (just as cryptography strength verification or even how to securely up your Computer). http://www.nsa.gov/snac/
With the proven fraud methods illegal aliens (and legal aliens) have used before to vote in US elections, self-identification is also essential. (Just like with credit card use! Ever been asked for your Picture ID when using your credit card? Why not with voting?)
With current electronic voting systems I remain unconvinced that there is not the ability to alter the voting data after I make my choice.
I say prove it. What better way then to provide the voting citizen the ability to look up their data individually from a unique number given at the time of voting?
->Bruce Schneier's excellent essay addresses the real need for electronic voting devices to have: Accuracy, Anonymity, Scalability, and Speed. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_problem_wit.html
If illegal vote buying takes place after the fact because users can look up their unique number given at the time of voting, pass harsh laws that make any adjudged vote selling a instant federal felony conviction unexpungeable from their permanent arrest records (felons in the US lose their right to vote, although certain former trial-lawyer politicians have been quietly seeking ways to allow non-citizens and felons to be able vote.)
You rarely hear about the theft of US Mail, and nobody in the criminal world wants a US Mail Fraud conviction. There are very harsh penalties for messing with the USPS.
Present electronic voting systems are unaccountable and therefore it might be hard to fint a security flaw and exploit it to alter the voting data (or to just change the data), but it is just too easy to get away with it!
There MUST be a permanent and unalterable when-cast vote record created *and* a way for each voter to verify that their data made it into the system precisely as they cast it. The Anonymity portion of my proposal is that the printed number is linked to what the vote choices were, not to the user's name.
The
"People" are not who should be the ones to determine "security" no matter how Warm & Fuzzy they feel about said technology.
I want a unique timestamped paper receipt which I can look up later to verify my actual votes! NOTE: This *IS ALREADY IN PLACE* with retail credit/debit card sales.
I want the NSA (yes, them. http://www.nsa.gov/home_html.cfm ) to certify ANY electronic voting apparatus used in the US and to further guarantee its accuracy.
This means they would be one the ones doing the recounts along with an certified third party (or two) paid for by each region/state choosing to use electronic voting.
I would like all records including the evidence (in-situ timestamps generated printed paper vote ballot recipts) be available for and dispute review.
Each electronic voter would be issued a unique identifier number on their receipt at the time of their voting, that way they could login into a secure web server with that number to review their vote selections. There would also be a dispute console available for any discrepancies. Metrics revealed from the 'disputes' submitted would indicate a problem.
This would be a more ideal way to merge the speed of 'paperless' electronic voting technologies with the exacting re-countability of 'paper' voting methods.
I get a receipt that is both unique and timestamped when I purchase a single pack of gum at the grocery store with my Debit Card.
Why are there no accountable unique and timestamped receipts provided to every electronic voter and some secure method with which they could later review them?
I believe that the NSA has both the technical knowledge and resources to set up said secure verification of-your-vote web servers.
If it works for retail transactions, why not for voting? Heck... Mastercard/Visa and the NSA could team up and develop a FAST *and* far more secure electronic voting system with paper receipts user verification. I'd even pay the Card companies their 1%-3% cuts for that kind of reliability!
The real problem here is that there are too many cooks with too many agendas in the voting methodology kitchen!!!
For a normal projectile that is true (what the 'Mythbusters' were using), but it is not always true so for a projectile that supercavitates.
Supercavitating bullets have been successfully tested from air into water use... this just takes that to a much faster velocity. At these extreme speeds, air friction/pressure on a rail gun projectile likely far exceeds what friction/pressure water would provide onto a standard rifle bullet fired into it. Rail gun projectiles have different properties because they are moving at hyper velocities and they are likely made of tougher materials. They might create a tunnel of steam/plasma as they are fired into water. Or, you may be right.. they might simply disintegrate. I bet the Navy knows...
Interesting point.
Actually, I can't think of a reason why a nuke sub could not be so equipped with a electro-magnetic rail gun weapon?
Subs would need to firing a railgun-capable supercavitating projectile... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/supercavitation.htm
Then again... a sub-mounted rail-gun would certainly give away the sub's position underwater but at such hypervelocity projectile speeds, really there is not too much difference between air and water (other than the density but both are fluids) provided the projectile could maintain structure at speed. So much for leading a moving ship with your torpedo.
I can just visualize a future scene from the to-be-yet-made remake of 'The Hunt for Red October' here is a few decades...
The Sub's Weapons Officer having just fired the 'weapon', calls out to the Captain: "Time to projectile impact: Zero-Point-Zero-Five -Um, -NOW!!"...
I hope we run them on Linux or some other software much moe difficult to compromise. Then again human error is ever present in code so complex.
Few Movie Plots come to mind on commandeered war robots, but far too many movie plots focus on robotic AI's wising-up and going after their human overlords. Bladerunner, T1-T3, Runaway, Red Planet, A.I. (to a lesser degree), Lost In Space, etc... Help me out here if you want as I am sure I missed many others.
Multiple radios in simultaneous operation (Read: MIMO) plus the circuits to coordinate and control the radios and it has *double the bandwidth* (in the physical layer) = more power use by the 802.11n device. Duh! (Also notice there are more and larger antennas?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n
If the big deal in the article is over PoE powered 802.11n solutions, just exceed the power spec at the power injector and use 24 Gauge CAT6 UTP (or larger Gauge CAT6 for longer runs) for your PoE runs to lower electrical resistance.
I have installed PoE devices that have their own proprietary power injectors that exceed the PoE power standard. The problem is where people use long runs of super cheap CAT5 and lots of punch-downs and they expect also their large switch with PoE injection to provide PoE to whatever is connected. There is a reason that the manufacturers' of powered by PoE devices do provide their own wall-wart PoE injectors...
I would hope that it does not contain an RTG or other nuclear components... but RTG's are said to be able to survive reentry...,Ahem! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
Recall that some of our older satellites had Polonium 210 coatings applied to some surfaces which could not be allowed to become frozen (batteries, etc.) in the deep cold of space (including parts of our Apollo Lunar Rover if my memory serves). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium
Wait a minute!!!, Wasn't this the secondary plot to G.I. Jane?
A true Faraday Cage is essentially a grounded metal structure (whether solid metal sheets, a conductive metal coating/paint, or some type of metal 'mesh') which acts like a force-field for electromagnetic radiation. (What we commonly call radio signals) Here is another definition: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci942282,00.html
As I understand Faraday Cages, devices inside them and outside of them technically can still transmit/receive signals individually, but, any electromagnetic radiation is effectively blocked by the Faraday Cage itself between what is inside and outside of it, thus electromagnetically isolating what is inside and outside of it.
A modern microwave oven is the most common example of a Faraday Cage as it is essentially a "Microwave" transmitter inside a Faraday Cage with a internal space on which to place food. The Faraday Cage of a Microwave oven is 'good enough' for most people's safety, but some people have an implanted pacemaker and/or defibrillator with wiring connecting to electrodes directly into their heart tissues. Stray Microwaves 'leaking' from the cheaply manufactured/engineered Faraday Cages used in Microwave Ovens can induce currents in these electrodes and interfere with the implanted devices functions and possibly the heart itself. I would not want to be in the same room with a microwave oven that happened be be modified to operate with its door open.
Another common example of Faraday Cages are the room-sized ones built around modern hospital MRI machines. I witnessed one of these being built in 2002 out of heavy sheets of 1/4" thick Steel. Every steel seam was precision welded and the welds were then x-ray photographed for perfection (similar to the mission-critical verification methods used on welds on nuclear reactors, etc.) The Welder told me that if even the smallest pin-hole was present in the MRI's 1/4" steel Faraday Cage's welds, stray electromagnetic radiation could effect MRI scans. And I do recall my Nokia cell phone was operational when I was in the MRI room... I could still play 'snake' only it just had absolutely "No Signal". (Note: There was a cell tower less than 200 yards across the street from the hospital)
I was wrong, It is not more than one serving per week... (but that was 1995)... http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/news/newsmar05.htm
"The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) plans to lower the acceptable level of mercury in fish from one part per million (ppm) to 0.3 ppm so that the state's standard matches federal guidelines. In advance of the change, the department issued an advisory that women who are pregnant and young children should not eat more than one serving of predatory fish per week (including bass, flathead catfish, walleye, gar and crappie) from Oklahoma waterways.
Source: Oklahoma DEQ issues statewide advisory for mercury levels in fish, Associated Press, Feb 16, 2005."
As 'large' as some of my fishing friends and neighbors are, I feel confident in saying that they often surpass the vague "one serving" quantity in a single dining session. There are very few 'Natural Sources' of Mercury in Oklahoma. NOTE: Oklahoma only has one or two 'natural' lakes/reservoirs out of the 3 dozen or so lakes/reservoirs in the state. I'd expect similar results in adjoining states.
Not to mention the un-filtered combustibles from coal-fired power stations release vast amounts of Mercury Vapors that contaminate our environment and food chains.
Scrubbing the gaseous elemental Mercury from the combustion gases is very expensive and not that efficient and many countries don't even bother. Look it up in your own country.
I'd rather have the *fear* of an unlikely contamination of my environment from non-global-warming nuclear power than the *certainty* of air pollution and Mercury in my food.
I live in the Central US and already pregnant women are strongly cautioned to NOT to eat freshwater fish more than once per 2 weeks (last I read) because of Mercury pollution from rain containing coal-combustion mercury vapor condensates. And this mean ALL lakes, streams, rivers, ponds, etc... I used to love to catch and eat my caught fish. Now I can only catch and release...
For some reason, I don't see the any tree-hugging Nuclear nay-sayers addressing this point. Because it clearly points toward MORE coal burning to power the exhaust scrubbers (and thus more CO2 released) versus Using Nuclear power and having Zero CO2 release.
Incorrect. I respectfully beg to differ.
If the wireless device is powered off, if its is battery is removed, and if it is placed *inside a closed Faraday Cage*, would I then agree it can't emit a signal.
Besides, What makes you think that similar techniques to RFID passive pinging reply signals are not already used in current/future cellular devices with their much higher gain omnidirectional transceiver antennas?
Even without the main battery, these devices contain efficient capacitors with stored current and many others have small lithium backup batteries.
There are also other methods of producing a unique identifier reply signal from a timed transmitted volley of tower triangulation "pings".
There was a very real reason for Gene Hackman's character "Brill" to place the cell phone (and other items) belonging to Will Smith's character "Robert Dean" inside a mylar potato chip bag in certain a scene from the movie "Enemy of The State". This was a impromptu very poor man's Faraday Cage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
NOTE: "Enemy of The State" came out a decade ago in 1998, what does a decade's worth of technological advancements bring us on this topic?
Seeing the linked article's image of the 3 Doctor's holding their experimental "Prototype Cognitive Helmet", I can't help but imagine one of them wearing it while reenacting Rick Moranis' doll-play monologue from Spaceballs:
[Playing with his dolls]
Dark Helmet: [In Dark Helmet voice] And now Princess Vespa, I have you in my clutches, to have my wicked way with you, the way I want to.
[In Vespa voice]
Dark Helmet: No, no, go away, I hate you! And yet... I find you strangely attractive.
[In D.H. voice]
Dark Helmet: Of course you do! Druish princesses are often attracted to money and power, and I have both, and you *know* it!
[In V. voice]
Dark Helmet: No, no, leave me alone!
[In D.H. voice]
Dark Helmet: No, kiss me!
[V]
Dark Helmet: No! Stop!
[D.H]
Dark Helmet: Yes, yes!
[V]
Dark Helmet: Oh, oh, oh! Ohhhh, your helmet is so big!
I fully agree with your comment, however, the SIM card on the iPhone might be classified as "removable storage" as it can store data and it is removable.
Didn't someone once try to Patent "The Wheel" with this a similar Patent Trolling method?
Why not try Patenting "Drinking Liquids" and then attempt to sue the pants off of Coke, Pepsi, and Budweiser...
That is a good point, but it is not necessarily in contradiction to my point.
The number of "exploits" is the number of documented (and undocumented) security flaws *that have been taken advantage of* by black-hat writers of security-flaw exploiting code.
Exploiters (in my argument), will focus on the Operating Systems that are in the highest use (WinXP versus WinVista, for example).
Win98 has many many more security flaws and exploits than WinXP, but it is not in the highest usage and so Win98 is not the main focus of exploiters.
My point is that the writers of said exploiting code will focus their efforts on Operating Systems that are in the highest usage (like Windows XP).
Eventually the OS that has the highest usage will be WinVista (*or not*) in the future as WinXP falls out of favor for some OS in higher usage.
The number of Operating System security flaws that can be exploited is only one of several factors as to whether "Exploiters" write code to exploit 'flaws' in that given OS.
I say that if the OS is in the highest usage among the exploiter's targets, than that is the most important factor in determining the targeting of an OS for exploits.
Microsoft can claim WinVista has fewer exploits than WinXP in its first year, but WinXP was so similar to Win2k that many of the Win2k exploits were carried over AND therefore more people were using it and it was targeted.
WinVista will really be in trouble once someone cracks and "exploits" its DRM 'features'; But it is safe if most prefer WinXP or alternative OS choices.
Could the reason there are fewer exploits in the first year of Vista (Verses XP) be due to the fact that it has a reluctant adoption rate bu users and the OS exploiters are likely focusing their efforts on current Operating Systems that are more stable, known, and in higher use.
Give it time...
Besides, now that Microsoft has set 2009 for the new "Windows 7" release target date, it seems that Vista may be the new short-lived 'Windows Me'.
Slashdot Mirror
There is some confusion here, Please first refer to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_color and to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_filter
Actually, butterfly wing-scales are the color of the underlying wing cells that produce the scales (and not blue, etc..) The scales are actually not blue, they are probably the color of butterfly skin cells.
The intense powder blue colors observed in butterfly scales are caused by Optical Interference Filter phenomenons in the microscopic slits in the surface of the scales *only* and not from a pigment or dye. Think of it as a mirror that adsorbs light in all optical wavelengths and reflects only the shades of blue observed. If you were to shine light of different wavelengths like pure green or red, the wings would be appear dark or mostly black as they absorb wavelengths of light that are not those specific to those shades of blue light they reflect.
Traditional colors (in most things we see daily) are caused by pigments and dyes (subtractive color) or from CRT/LCD/Plasma display RGB techniques (additive color).
This 'new' technology using "Femtosecond Lasers" creates precise cuts in the surface of metals (or other substances), to create these precise interference pattern slits to produce brilliant colors. These slits act as a slit interference light reflector/absorber as they brightly reflect specific wavelengths like a selective mirror and adsorb others. This method is vastly more efficient than colored subtractive filters and therefore produce colors far more intense than any pigment or dye could produce.
All butterfly and moth scales are made of non-living insect cuticle. Insect cuticle comes from epithelial cells and is made up of chitin and protein. These Chitins and Proteins are not necessarily colored or pigmented. Their observed 'colors' virtually all come from their nano-scale *structures* which have microscopic optical interference reflectors/absorbers. Some insects use these 'scales' to very efficiently absorb light to stay warm in sunlight and the light reflected is very brilliant and is essentially a mirror to particular wavelengths.
The important thing FTA is that now mankind has learned how to use lasers to be able to modify the surface of metal substrates (of whatever native 'color') to adsorb and reflect specific wavelengths of light in the visual range. This can be used to make better coatings and even better camouflage. The USAF already uses similar technology in their "stealth paint" with radar-adsorbing interference filtering "stuff" in the paint itself (as well as the shape). This new technology reads to me to to be a good step in the direction of daylight stealth and camouflage, but just like the butterfly wings. Once touched or structurally affected, the surface structure changes and so does the color absorption/reflection. This is why it is very necessary to carefully clean stealth aircraft just before missions, otherwise combustion particles, dust, etc.. can reflect radar and defeat some of the paint's stealth properties. This would have a similar optical effect on the "Femtosecond Laser-colored Metals" referred FTA.
IMHO, I respectfully disagree. Any propulsion system other than Nuclear would just not be very feasible for extended undersea cable tapping operations and Seal incursions, etc...
The USS Jimmy Carter's battery of 50 Tomahawk (nuclear warhead capable) cruise *missiles* are deterrence in my opinion. (But conventional warhead Tomahawks are scary as well.)
To also modify a nuclear submarine design to be 100 feet longer in order to accommodate more Seal Teams & "gear" is also deterrence. Deterrence is a matter of opinion though.
Strictly speaking, yes, only boomers (SSBN's) have ICBM capabilities. But to me, the USS Jimmy Carter's *known* capabilities are formidable and would certainly deter me (were I a US adversary) from provoking the United States further (especially if intelligence told me it was hiding somewhere off my coast and I had recently severely pissed-off the US.)
Additional info in these Wiki articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawolf_class_submarine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter
The US is most likely using its Nuclear Submarines (USS Jimmy Carter, et al) for something other than mere 'deterrence'. Cool.
We read about this here before:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/23/2142216 and
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/11/20/235216
http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=US+Submarine+cable+tapping&btnG=Search
Please mod parent up.
While on topic: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_problem_wit.html
I thought about the bait-and-switch database possibility. There would have to be a non-volatile record taken at the time of voting (kept for recounts and encoded, encrypted, etc..) And that would match information in the "voting receipt" about the voting choices. "Trust' in the NSA's confirmation site that one could verify with their receipt would also be required. Running the system on open-source software and encryption that whose source code is easily attainable by the community might assist security of and its development.
Minds far wiser have pondered this issue for some time. Paper ballots DO appear to be the best solution for reasons not immediately apparent. If only the ACLU could see this too.
I get what you are saying about the potential for vote buying... and it is a Valid point.
But as a voter, that is so much less of a fear to me than the ability for someone or an entity to be able to electronically rig an election (if not just part). Allowing the voter to lookup to "verify" their vote choices *after the fact* is the point!
How do I know if my vote was electronically changed to a different choice than the one I made? Buy looking it up!
Using statistics to prove a system is secure sure sounds like telling an individual their vote does not count. I want to look mine up! After all the money spent on political ads and other advertising, there's no way for a specific voter to vbe able to verify their vote? Even my local cable company can look up mt account and verify what choices I made on my channel and data plan selections. I have had some of those changed without mt permission, I verified my choices and resolved the error. Verification is key to trust.
Now if someone or some entity is paying others for their votes and they want to use the 'verification' system to prove who they voted for... that's abuse and is already against the law in the US.
If I can account for my exact 'choices' and 'values' made at precise times and locations with a simple credit card receipt NOW, why not for my electronic vote!!!??
There is a real reason we do not have an accountable system in place. What could it be?
Furthermore, we need to verify identity with a fingerprint (or other not-exclusive-to-an-ID-Card biometric information) when we vote to ensure multiple voting abuses do not take place. Wait a minute... I do this *already* with my fingerprint whenever I cash a check at my local bank.. Why not for voting too??
Voting IS a National Security issue and therefore falls under the territorial umbrella of the NSA (just as cryptography strength verification or even how to securely up your Computer). http://www.nsa.gov/snac/
With the proven fraud methods illegal aliens (and legal aliens) have used before to vote in US elections, self-identification is also essential. (Just like with credit card use! Ever been asked for your Picture ID when using your credit card? Why not with voting?)
With current electronic voting systems I remain unconvinced that there is not the ability to alter the voting data after I make my choice.
I say prove it. What better way then to provide the voting citizen the ability to look up their data individually from a unique number given at the time of voting?
->Bruce Schneier's excellent essay addresses the real need for electronic voting devices to have: Accuracy, Anonymity, Scalability, and Speed. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_problem_wit.html
If illegal vote buying takes place after the fact because users can look up their unique number given at the time of voting, pass harsh laws that make any adjudged vote selling a instant federal felony conviction unexpungeable from their permanent arrest records (felons in the US lose their right to vote, although certain former trial-lawyer politicians have been quietly seeking ways to allow non-citizens and felons to be able vote.)
You rarely hear about the theft of US Mail, and nobody in the criminal world wants a US Mail Fraud conviction. There are very harsh penalties for messing with the USPS.
Present electronic voting systems are unaccountable and therefore it might be hard to fint a security flaw and exploit it to alter the voting data (or to just change the data), but it is just too easy to get away with it!
There MUST be a permanent and unalterable when-cast vote record created *and* a way for each voter to verify that their data made it into the system precisely as they cast it. The Anonymity portion of my proposal is that the printed number is linked to what the vote choices were, not to the user's name.
The
"People" are not who should be the ones to determine "security" no matter how Warm & Fuzzy they feel about said technology.
I want a unique timestamped paper receipt which I can look up later to verify my actual votes! NOTE: This *IS ALREADY IN PLACE* with retail credit/debit card sales.
I want the NSA (yes, them. http://www.nsa.gov/home_html.cfm ) to certify ANY electronic voting apparatus used in the US and to further guarantee its accuracy.
This means they would be one the ones doing the recounts along with an certified third party (or two) paid for by each region/state choosing to use electronic voting.
I would like all records including the evidence (in-situ timestamps generated printed paper vote ballot recipts) be available for and dispute review.
Each electronic voter would be issued a unique identifier number on their receipt at the time of their voting, that way they could login into a secure web server with that number to review their vote selections. There would also be a dispute console available for any discrepancies. Metrics revealed from the 'disputes' submitted would indicate a problem. This would be a more ideal way to merge the speed of 'paperless' electronic voting technologies with the exacting re-countability of 'paper' voting methods.
I get a receipt that is both unique and timestamped when I purchase a single pack of gum at the grocery store with my Debit Card.
Why are there no accountable unique and timestamped receipts provided to every electronic voter and some secure method with which they could later review them?
I believe that the NSA has both the technical knowledge and resources to set up said secure verification of-your-vote web servers.
If it works for retail transactions, why not for voting? Heck... Mastercard/Visa and the NSA could team up and develop a FAST *and* far more secure electronic voting system with paper receipts user verification. I'd even pay the Card companies their 1%-3% cuts for that kind of reliability!
The real problem here is that there are too many cooks with too many agendas in the voting methodology kitchen!!!
For a normal projectile that is true (what the 'Mythbusters' were using), but it is not always true so for a projectile that supercavitates.
Supercavitating bullets have been successfully tested from air into water use... this just takes that to a much faster velocity. At these extreme speeds, air friction/pressure on a rail gun projectile likely far exceeds what friction/pressure water would provide onto a standard rifle bullet fired into it. Rail gun projectiles have different properties because they are moving at hyper velocities and they are likely made of tougher materials. They might create a tunnel of steam/plasma as they are fired into water. Or, you may be right.. they might simply disintegrate. I bet the Navy knows...
Interesting point.
Actually, I can't think of a reason why a nuke sub could not be so equipped with a electro-magnetic rail gun weapon?
Subs would need to firing a railgun-capable supercavitating projectile... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/supercavitation.htm
Then again... a sub-mounted rail-gun would certainly give away the sub's position underwater but at such hypervelocity projectile speeds, really there is not too much difference between air and water (other than the density but both are fluids) provided the projectile could maintain structure at speed. So much for leading a moving ship with your torpedo.
I can just visualize a future scene from the to-be-yet-made remake of 'The Hunt for Red October' here is a few decades...
The Sub's Weapons Officer having just fired the 'weapon', calls out to the Captain: "Time to projectile impact: Zero-Point-Zero-Five -Um, -NOW!!"...
I hope we run them on Linux or some other software much moe difficult to compromise. Then again human error is ever present in code so complex.
Few Movie Plots come to mind on commandeered war robots, but far too many movie plots focus on robotic AI's wising-up and going after their human overlords. Bladerunner, T1-T3, Runaway, Red Planet, A.I. (to a lesser degree), Lost In Space, etc... Help me out here if you want as I am sure I missed many others.
Multiple radios in simultaneous operation (Read: MIMO) plus the circuits to coordinate and control the radios and it has *double the bandwidth* (in the physical layer) = more power use by the 802.11n device. Duh! (Also notice there are more and larger antennas?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n
If the big deal in the article is over PoE powered 802.11n solutions, just exceed the power spec at the power injector and use 24 Gauge CAT6 UTP (or larger Gauge CAT6 for longer runs) for your PoE runs to lower electrical resistance.
I have installed PoE devices that have their own proprietary power injectors that exceed the PoE power standard. The problem is where people use long runs of super cheap CAT5 and lots of punch-downs and they expect also their large switch with PoE injection to provide PoE to whatever is connected. There is a reason that the manufacturers' of powered by PoE devices do provide their own wall-wart PoE injectors...
I would hope that it does not contain an RTG or other nuclear components... but RTG's are said to be able to survive reentry... ,Ahem! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
Recall that some of our older satellites had Polonium 210 coatings applied to some surfaces which could not be allowed to become frozen (batteries, etc.) in the deep cold of space (including parts of our Apollo Lunar Rover if my memory serves). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium
Wait a minute!!!, Wasn't this the secondary plot to G.I. Jane?
A true Faraday Cage is essentially a grounded metal structure (whether solid metal sheets, a conductive metal coating/paint, or some type of metal 'mesh') which acts like a force-field for electromagnetic radiation. (What we commonly call radio signals) Here is another definition: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci942282,00.html
As I understand Faraday Cages, devices inside them and outside of them technically can still transmit/receive signals individually, but, any electromagnetic radiation is effectively blocked by the Faraday Cage itself between what is inside and outside of it, thus electromagnetically isolating what is inside and outside of it.
A modern microwave oven is the most common example of a Faraday Cage as it is essentially a "Microwave" transmitter inside a Faraday Cage with a internal space on which to place food. The Faraday Cage of a Microwave oven is 'good enough' for most people's safety, but some people have an implanted pacemaker and/or defibrillator with wiring connecting to electrodes directly into their heart tissues. Stray Microwaves 'leaking' from the cheaply manufactured/engineered Faraday Cages used in Microwave Ovens can induce currents in these electrodes and interfere with the implanted devices functions and possibly the heart itself. I would not want to be in the same room with a microwave oven that happened be be modified to operate with its door open.
Another common example of Faraday Cages are the room-sized ones built around modern hospital MRI machines. I witnessed one of these being built in 2002 out of heavy sheets of 1/4" thick Steel. Every steel seam was precision welded and the welds were then x-ray photographed for perfection (similar to the mission-critical verification methods used on welds on nuclear reactors, etc.) The Welder told me that if even the smallest pin-hole was present in the MRI's 1/4" steel Faraday Cage's welds, stray electromagnetic radiation could effect MRI scans. And I do recall my Nokia cell phone was operational when I was in the MRI room... I could still play 'snake' only it just had absolutely "No Signal". (Note: There was a cell tower less than 200 yards across the street from the hospital)
Correction... Study quoted was in 2005 (not 1995). Dough!
Looked it up again: http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=Oklahoma+Mercury+Fish+Warning&btnG=Search
I was wrong, It is not more than one serving per week... (but that was 1995)... http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/news/newsmar05.htm
"The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) plans to lower the acceptable level of mercury in fish from one part per million (ppm) to 0.3 ppm so that the state's standard matches federal guidelines. In advance of the change, the department issued an advisory that women who are pregnant and young children should not eat more than one serving of predatory fish per week (including bass, flathead catfish, walleye, gar and crappie) from Oklahoma waterways.
Source: Oklahoma DEQ issues statewide advisory for mercury levels in fish, Associated Press, Feb 16, 2005."
As 'large' as some of my fishing friends and neighbors are, I feel confident in saying that they often surpass the vague "one serving" quantity in a single dining session. There are very few 'Natural Sources' of Mercury in Oklahoma. NOTE: Oklahoma only has one or two 'natural' lakes/reservoirs out of the 3 dozen or so lakes/reservoirs in the state. I'd expect similar results in adjoining states.
Not to mention the un-filtered combustibles from coal-fired power stations release vast amounts of Mercury Vapors that contaminate our environment and food chains.
Scrubbing the gaseous elemental Mercury from the combustion gases is very expensive and not that efficient and many countries don't even bother. Look it up in your own country.
I'd rather have the *fear* of an unlikely contamination of my environment from non-global-warming nuclear power than the *certainty* of air pollution and Mercury in my food.
I live in the Central US and already pregnant women are strongly cautioned to NOT to eat freshwater fish more than once per 2 weeks (last I read) because of Mercury pollution from rain containing coal-combustion mercury vapor condensates. And this mean ALL lakes, streams, rivers, ponds, etc... I used to love to catch and eat my caught fish. Now I can only catch and release...
For some reason, I don't see the any tree-hugging Nuclear nay-sayers addressing this point. Because it clearly points toward MORE coal burning to power the exhaust scrubbers (and thus more CO2 released) versus Using Nuclear power and having Zero CO2 release.
Incorrect. I respectfully beg to differ.
If the wireless device is powered off, if its is battery is removed, and if it is placed *inside a closed Faraday Cage*, would I then agree it can't emit a signal.
Besides, What makes you think that similar techniques to RFID passive pinging reply signals are not already used in current/future cellular devices with their much higher gain omnidirectional transceiver antennas?
Even without the main battery, these devices contain efficient capacitors with stored current and many others have small lithium backup batteries.
There are also other methods of producing a unique identifier reply signal from a timed transmitted volley of tower triangulation "pings".
There was a very real reason for Gene Hackman's character "Brill" to place the cell phone (and other items) belonging to Will Smith's character "Robert Dean" inside a mylar potato chip bag in certain a scene from the movie "Enemy of The State". This was a impromptu very poor man's Faraday Cage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
NOTE: "Enemy of The State" came out a decade ago in 1998, what does a decade's worth of technological advancements bring us on this topic?
Seeing the linked article's image of the 3 Doctor's holding their experimental "Prototype Cognitive Helmet", I can't help but imagine one of them wearing it while reenacting Rick Moranis' doll-play monologue from Spaceballs:
[Playing with his dolls]
Dark Helmet: [In Dark Helmet voice] And now Princess Vespa, I have you in my clutches, to have my wicked way with you, the way I want to.
[In Vespa voice]
Dark Helmet: No, no, go away, I hate you! And yet... I find you strangely attractive.
[In D.H. voice]
Dark Helmet: Of course you do! Druish princesses are often attracted to money and power, and I have both, and you *know* it!
[In V. voice]
Dark Helmet: No, no, leave me alone!
[In D.H. voice]
Dark Helmet: No, kiss me!
[V]
Dark Helmet: No! Stop!
[D.H]
Dark Helmet: Yes, yes!
[V]
Dark Helmet: Oh, oh, oh! Ohhhh, your helmet is so big!
I fully agree with your comment, however, the SIM card on the iPhone might be classified as "removable storage" as it can store data and it is removable.
Didn't someone once try to Patent "The Wheel" with this a similar Patent Trolling method?
Why not try Patenting "Drinking Liquids" and then attempt to sue the pants off of Coke, Pepsi, and Budweiser...
That is a good point, but it is not necessarily in contradiction to my point.
The number of "exploits" is the number of documented (and undocumented) security flaws *that have been taken advantage of* by black-hat writers of security-flaw exploiting code.
Exploiters (in my argument), will focus on the Operating Systems that are in the highest use (WinXP versus WinVista, for example).
Win98 has many many more security flaws and exploits than WinXP, but it is not in the highest usage and so Win98 is not the main focus of exploiters.
My point is that the writers of said exploiting code will focus their efforts on Operating Systems that are in the highest usage (like Windows XP).
Eventually the OS that has the highest usage will be WinVista (*or not*) in the future as WinXP falls out of favor for some OS in higher usage.
The number of Operating System security flaws that can be exploited is only one of several factors as to whether "Exploiters" write code to exploit 'flaws' in that given OS.
I say that if the OS is in the highest usage among the exploiter's targets, than that is the most important factor in determining the targeting of an OS for exploits.
Microsoft can claim WinVista has fewer exploits than WinXP in its first year, but WinXP was so similar to Win2k that many of the Win2k exploits were carried over AND therefore more people were using it and it was targeted.
WinVista will really be in trouble once someone cracks and "exploits" its DRM 'features'; But it is safe if most prefer WinXP or alternative OS choices.
Could the reason there are fewer exploits in the first year of Vista (Verses XP) be due to the fact that it has a reluctant adoption rate bu users and the OS exploiters are likely focusing their efforts on current Operating Systems that are more stable, known, and in higher use.
Give it time...
Besides, now that Microsoft has set 2009 for the new "Windows 7" release target date, it seems that Vista may be the new short-lived 'Windows Me'.
Was it a Linksys with default settings?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=default+router+passwords&btnG=Google+Search
He will incorporate this new 'blackest' black into Doom 4.
(and you just thought you saw all possible shades of black and brown in Doom 3!)
Actually, that was the best quote from the movie "Armageddon" - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120591/
OMG, I saw it too!!... I remember reading it here: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/19/169259