FKA (Russia) is the most experienced, and best at putting people people safely into LEO. CNSA is the only other organization that puts people into outer space. I wouldn't use SpaceX, and their flimsy rockets. Oh well.
That's pretty impressive for the California Nursing Students Association.
In the stuff I work on (crypto specs) almost everyone involved works for a government. There are some. Myself, some consultants but they are a small minority. But the governments choose the national position, not the individuals.
Having been to some ISO meetings recently, I can state without fear of being wrong, that ISO leaves itself wide open to corruption. There is a process, but it is nothing like a normal standards process with the usual mitigation to prevent domination by a single body and a convergent consensus process to get to an agreeable document in a reasonable time.
Participants don't even get access to the documents they are working on. They have to buy themselves copies in uneditable PDFs. The result is that people keep adding crap into specs that already exists in other specs, but no one knows to reference it. So these things become inconsistent over time.
You will find function specifications handled in one group and test & validation specifications for the same thing in a different group. So the function specification gets no consideration of testability requirements and the test & validation group don't get to specify that the thing be testable, only how it may be tested after it's been implemented to the spec that has no testability requirements in it.
ISO is not a competent organisation to write specs. Certainly not technical computer software and hardware specifications. Maybe they're OK at bridge loading specs, or non-stick coatings. I don't know.
To find out where the NSA put the twist.
Well P-224 isn't twist secure, if that's what you're hinting at.
In reality the backdoor isn't in SP800-90A, B or C. It's in FIPS 140-2 section 4.9.2. In a FIPS certified module, that procedure applies to all RNG outputs 16 bits and above. A test that changes the data to create a stream of known algebraic inequalities. Genius.
NIST recklessly broke our trust in them by allowing known to be broken encryption into their standard. Their new document may come with all the best intentions, but it will take years to rebuild that trust. Let's wait for what the crypto community has to say about these documents, before we blindly follow their latest standards.
Well you could go with the ANSI or ISO RNG specs.
Oh wait, they're written by the same people.
Economic and social utility to whom?
People who would otherwise be homeless?
I think that there is one difference in this cycle though. I think that a lot of the ARM mortgages were eaten up in the great recession. Most of the loans nowadays are conventional, or in the case of investors, just cash.
I've saved 10s of thousands of dollars with ARM mortgages over the last 15 years.
>But personal and tax implications have done that,
What does that mean? Did they help or hinder?
>$500/month is $6K per year
Maintenance can be more than that. Especially with bad renters. You also have to live your life and good renters make for less stress.
>"Dropping a vulnerability" is common security community vernacular
Is it? Maybe I live in a security researcher bubble that doesn't interact with the cool security researcher kids who use 'drop' in place of 'publish'.
X was a thing, not an amount.
Queue up the internet insider trading frame up scenario.
#1 Hack A, a competitor to B, finding that A will do X.
#2 Hack B, leaving hints that it was A that did it.
#3 Leak to gullible idiot in B that A is doing X.
#4 Trade on X happening.
#5 gullible idiot trades on X happening.
#7 Trade on B being found out by the SEC
#6 SEC throws gullible idiot to the dogs.
#7 Profit!
... the net neutrality regulations ARE NOT a government takeover of the running operations of telecoms.
True, but that's not the same thing as saying net neutrality rules don't affect cost structures for telecoms.
Selling an unlimited service and then limiting it is fraud. People should go to jail for that. Requiring vendors to tell the truth about their product and adhere to their product claims in not an unreasonable intrusion into their cost structures.
>just to accommodate those who want to carry on their luggage
I don't want to carry on luggage. I want to avoid baggage claim, not lose my bag and skip the line at check in. Carrying on is just means, not the motivation.
It boils down to "why not pre-compile entire websites into binary packages per-page? It would make it much faster and more efficient for the browser to load it..."
Or we could write programs, compile them and let users run them on their computer.
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn
