The point he was making is that with proper procedure, a hash could never be attacked offline. As soon as the hash database were compromised, all hashes contained therein would be invalidated. The attacker could brute force that database to their heart's content, and no valid passwords would ever result from it.

This of course assumes the administrators are paying close enough attention to notice in short order when the database has been compromised, and that all users define a secondary means of contact through which to send a reset password. It also ignores the issue that most users use the same username and password across multiple sites, such that a pair compromised on one site and invalidated as described would still be valid on another site.

You're already experiencing significant drag when you jump out of that aircraft at 100 knots. You're only in something closely resembling freefall when you jump from a balloon, or base jump.

Florida is a good thousand miles away from the Texas launch facility. It would take more fuel to continue downrange and land in Florida than it would to turn back and land in Texas. Florida might be a good landing site for a recoverable Falcon Heavy center stage, but they're likely only around 100mi down range by first stage cutoff.

The difference between something able to reach 100km, and something able to reach that altitude with enough energy to make it a quarter of the way around the world, is significant. They are really not close at all to being a useful transportation mechanism.

Especially when you have a hot bell and combustion chamber that suddenly come into contact with salt water.

Does Virgin Galactic even have plans for a vehicle capable of LEO insertion? All that SpaceShipOne/Two nonsense barely even qualifies as reaching space, and achieves about a 50th the energy necessary for actual orbit.

I think there's something more interesting going on here than simple population control...

The article itself hardly touches on the technical merits of the missile system. It mentions how there are hardly any public releases of technical aspect to discuss, and that the handful of images of the system in operation show intercept angles that are highly unlikely to be successful. The core argument of the article is that the whole situation is nothing more than a PR campaign on both sides.

Hamas fires inaccurate artillery rockets, unlikely to actually hit anything, at Israel, under the hopes Israel counter-attacks and causes lots of collateral damage that looks bad to international press.

Israel produces a defense system and makes precision counter-attacks to prove their technological and military prowess, and restraint in its use, to international press.

It looked like the SB card performed well within the 20-20K range, and unless you're looking to do further processing on the analog output from the card, anything more than that is unnecessary.

Because they don't scale up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law

Smaller rotors means lower mass flow rate, requiring higher flow velocity to produce the necessary thrust. Higher flow velocity means higher power requirements. The larger your aircraft, the more difficult it becomes to produce the necessary amount of power to remain airborne.

More importantly, a pair of counter-rotating rotors gets around the pesky roll issue caused by rotor stall on the retreating side at high speed. The rotor may still stall, but it doesn't matter nearly as much since you're still balanced.

You're going the complete wrong direction. If you want to have any change in hell of actually having enough power to get this thing in the air, you need to get your blade loading down, and that means a huge rotor. Huge rotors mean you need to be running low RPMs to keep it subsonic at the tip, and remember that the colder and higher molecular weight atmosphere means the speed of sound is going to be ~30% lower.

The quadrotor design paradigm exists because small electric motors are cheap, and the power-to-weight ratios available in the couple pound range are absurd to the point that good engineering is unnecessary. In the couple thousand pound range, power becomes far more scarce, and the small, inefficient rotors just won't cut it. They have lowered the minimum barrier to entry for hobbyists, and research projects that need a simple airborne platform. They don't work well for full scale aircraft.

Yes. It does. That's why a Li-Ion battery is permanently dead if you allow it to self-discharge too far.

Since you don't seem to be getting bored of yourself, it's the fundamental principle of thermionic emission.

Zero. In a multi-cell Li-Ion battery, once your cell voltage drops below a certain critical value, a protection circuit disconnects it from the rest of the pack. A fully discharged battery will simply be a short circuit bypassing all the individual cells.