Yup, they all got demolished for the Neil Armstrong Engineering Building right next to the Physics building. -rsagris BSc. Math '07

It isn't Security Through Obscurity. When Obscurity is added as part of an overall Security Architecture it is Security In Depth. For Obscurity to be a proper security enhancer, you have to have a fundamentally secure foundation onto which you add Obscurity to outside attackers. For example, I would wager it'd be very difficult to even begin to conduct cryptoanalysis aagainst an unpublished/undocumented NSA designed crypto-system over trying to crypto-analyze a documented crypto-system. I am presuming that the system itself is secure by design, as it was designed by the NSA (the largest single employer of mathematicians in the world, devoted to cryptography to boot.) So, if we are going to discuss adding depth to secure systems by overlaying more obscurity could we stop rehashing how obscurity isn't security. Anyone who knows anything about this topic knows that, Obscurity by itself does not provide a robustly secure system, it fails once the obscurity is peirced.

Restricted is only used by other NATO countries but is not actually used as an official classification by the US. The closest we have, but it isn't directly equivalent, is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO).

The article I read said that dietary supplement Vitamin D is not the kind that is absorbed by the body very well. And that sun exposure produced Vitamin D is produced in ridiculous quantities by the skin when compared to dietary ingenstion (for even natural Vitamin D foods like the grandparent listed) The Doctor was saying that even taking into account a proper diet, you still were not properly reaching what a healthy level of sun exposure would natural have circulating through the body.