Posts by Trygve Henriksen

Yes, but...

That is clearly a toy, while this is an 'aid', which makes them wildly different.

(At least in price... )

Couldn't find it either.

The closest I havefound is '10-108' "officer down/in need of assistance"

http://www1.apsu.edu/oconnort/polcodes.htm

Incidentally, I found this in the list:

11-25 Vehicle - Traffic hazzard

11-25X Female motorist need assistance

No, there's no "11-25Y Male motorist need assistance"...

Sure there are...

Have you tried going to Amazon and searching for "Building Secure Systems"?

You'd be amazed at the list of books to choose between.

(Some of them may actually be good, too)

Sure they did.

The hulls are almost identical. The only 'major' difference is the hinged bow section, which looks as if a blind person slapped it on, while drunk...

(I won't mention the rear ramp... Ugh... )

And if you read up on the KNM Skjold you'll see that the functional description is exactly the same; a catamaran wih a partial air-cushion trapped between the hulls.

As for transporting A1s or Chieftains...

Rip off the superstructure, the 76mm Oto Breda Super Rapid cannon, the Surface-to-surface missiles, the state-of-the-art radar and comms, build the hull out of thick steel plates instead of modern radar-absorbent materials, and you'd probably end up with that PACwhatever...

What I'm trying to say is that NOTHING on that lander is 'new' or innovative.

Not my fault that the British Navy is so far after the times...

Also, the 'standoff' these can give the mothership is imaginary.

As soon as anything like this gets close to the shore, they will be spotted and reported back to a HQ. When THAT happens, the REAL killers of the sea is let loose. Subs, MTBs.

A Landing craft has NO use on a modern battlefield before the beach-head is secure and you have air-superiority, and also have taken out command and communications. (A single man-portable missile can take it out during the unloading phase. And you have no way of stopping him unless you 'own' the area for at least a few Km around.) Want men on the beach?

Use RIBs. They're faster, have almost no radar signature, can be launched from large subs and so on. Sure, you can't bring Tanks( read: targets) on them, but a modern 'beach-head' scenario requiring tanks to keep it is doomed anyway. An A1 uses so much fuel that it could just as well be tied to a tanker truck... There's a lot of coastland that 'doesn't lend itself' to landing tanks or heavy machinery. The rest you must expect to be mined.

On the beaches that you CAN land on, the hovercraft models are much better than this hybrid as they can travel up onto the beach, so that soldiers can exit onto dry land instead of slowly wading through deep waters. (A slow soldier is a dead soldier)

Also, the Hovercraft will usually pass over buried mines on the beach without setting them off.

When the area IS secure, landing craft can be used to unload relief troops, equipment and supplies, but then you can also move the 'motherships' much closer to land without danger, so the unloading goes faster anyway.

Not all.

Some printers and electric typewiters use a 'one time' ribbon, similar to the ribbons used in labelprinters and such today.

(thin plastic film with a black coating that is transferred to the paper with an electric discharge)

Of course, most of those printers could use 'fax paper' insted of normal paper just by removing the ribbon. but those prints tended to fade over time.

Agreed!

Back in my military days I was stationed near the dog handlers' offices and training grounds, and we had strict orders to:

1. Not approach the dogs under ANY circumstances, not even when the handlers are there.

2. If you come across one of the dogs that are loose, DO NOT MOVE. Yes, it will bite you... HARD! But that's nothing compared to what it'll do if you try to resist.

Also, dogs like these aren't 'retired'. That would imply them leaving the compound...

Eh... Extra HW?

I'm not certain if you've noticed, but...

The last generations of HD-MD units all came with USB-interfaces, and even made it possible to copy files to and from them...

(Unlike the SCSI-based unit they released yoinks ago, which required special MD-Data disks for storing files, and wouldn't let you do anything but edit track-names on MD-Music disks... Were slower than the LS120 and ZIP-drives it was trying to compete with, too... )

Where the Minidisc players really shines is in recording interviews and long 'audio sessions'(My father does volunteer work for a local Christian radio, and that sometimes entails recording long speeches... Preachers likes hearing their own voices...)

Note:

MD = 150MB(74minutes of ATRAC-3 compressed stereo music, or much, much longer if mono at lower rates... )

HD-MD = 1GB(Which is quite a bit more than an uncompressed Audio CD)

Yes, you're paranoid...

But imagine a terorrist, lets call him Osama Been Late or something, sends a 'new' video of himself to a local newsstation, threatening to pollute the World's stores of Jarlsberg cheese with cheag Edam from the USA?

With the ENF tampered with the Keystone Cops can say that 'hey, this is an edited video, the guy behind the threats haven't made a reliable appearance in yoinks, and is probably dead'

In fact, it's in the terrorists own interest to keep the ENF as some sort of 'Open Source Digital Fingerprint' to prove that they are alive, well, and hoping that everyone else isn't.

(And if the ENF signature matched Acapulco, Las Vegas or another nice vacation location... they're obviously very well... )

By the power of GOOGLE!

You're looking for Michael Scott Rohan

http://www.philsp.com/homeville/isfac/t129.htm

Because...

If someone selling you boxes and they say 'sorry, but we use a proprietary encryption and no, we won't tell you anything about it', would you buy it?

Or would you rather go to the vendor pushing AES and a ridiculously long key?

After all, the 'proprietary encryption' could be a ROT13 or just XOR of the data...

(Such as found in wireless keyboards from a well-known company)

With a well-known and tested encryption we KNOW how difficult/impossible it is to break.

And knowing that a givent encryption would take a supercomputer years to break is worth more than 'no one is going to figure out how we do it'.

Especially if the crackers get hold of a copy(nicking a box and opening it, maybe?)