Stryker/C-130 Pics

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:30:33 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...

There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
that's not sitting there just generating heat.

Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.

Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
Navy not tell me what he did ?

Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
us it.

You've got to be kidding - anybody who might know such a fact isn't
going to be so stupid as to post it here.

John Hairell )

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:43:47 -0400, John Hairell wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:30:33 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:49:38 GMT, Tank Fixer wrote:
In article ,
says...

There's a big building full of computer equipment over at Ft. Meade
that's not sitting there just generating heat.

Yes, it is processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly.

Then why can't my brother-in-law who worked there for a bit while in the
Navy not tell me what he did ?

Look, if you have evidence that strong ciphers can be broken, show
us it.

You've got to be kidding - anybody who might know such a fact isn't
going to be so stupid as to post it here.

Yes, I know. That's why I said "evidence" not "knowledge". I have
posted my reasons for believing strong ciphers are secure, and I
note no-one has attempted to refute my argument.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

In article , Andrew Chaplin says...

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
snip
Funnily enough, after all the "it's useless and it won't work" stories,
this one never made much headway in the news.

Can't let facts get in the way of a good rant, can we?

I wonder if you have ever seen the reports of the NATO Arctic Small Arms
Trial held at Shilo in 1980. They had the early Diemaco or an M16A1,
proto-SA 80, several others and, for comparison's sake, a Steyr AUG.
According to the range officer, the AUG shot rings round all the rest.
(We bought the Canadian-made Diemaco, of course. Oh, well.)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)




I spoke to some Brits in North Belfast last year and they told us that their new
rifle was 'complete crap'. I think they were detached from a field gun
formation, possibbly Royal Artillery. The Welch Fusilers were in the same area.

A teenager from the Welch was blown up by a UDA frag device a few days
previously. I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've
not actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
soldier.

The Brits were stuck in a Saxon APC and had to eat, **** and pee in the darn
contraption which looks more like an armoured telephone repair van rather than a
real APC. I thought it looked like a relic from the 1950s.

In article , The Revolution Will Not Be
Televised says...

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:57:02 -0400, "Andrew Chaplin"
wrote:

Can't let facts get in the way of a good rant, can we?

I wonder if you have ever seen the reports of the NATO Arctic Small Arms
Trial held at Shilo in 1980. They had the early Diemaco or an M16A1,
proto-SA 80, several others and, for comparison's sake, a Steyr AUG.
According to the range officer, the AUG shot rings round all the rest.
(We bought the Canadian-made Diemaco, of course. Oh, well.)

The Steyr may have shot rings around the rest, but by that standard
the first SA80 I ever fired was also wonderful and far better than my
old SLR. Meanwhile, in the real world, Aussies I have spoken to have
apparently experienced worse problems with the Steyr than I ever did
with the SA80, and I can personally recall magazines falling out all
the time and once a cocking handle coming off in somebody's hand.

Gavin Bailey


I like the full furniture Steyr Deer rifle. I like rifles which look as if they
escaped from Kenya in the 1950s. I hate automatic rifles because the philosophy
behind them is entirely suspect.

One can either hit the bloody target or one can't. Of course that is just a
civilian perspective.

))

On 29 Sep 2003 19:49:55 -0700, Steyr wrote:

I spoke to some Brits in North Belfast last year and they told us that their new
rifle was 'complete crap'. I think they were detached from a field gun
formation, possibbly Royal Artillery. The Welch Fusilers were in the same area.

Bear in mind a non-infantry unit going out on roulement to NI oppress
you on your way to the newsie's to get your regular "Aeroplane
Spotter" will be last on the list for the A2 version. All the
refitted A2's will have gone to Iraq, as the main focus of Treasury
approved-MoD spending, even if they haven't sent any water, tents or
generators. It will of course be a matter of critical importance to
the average citizen of Basra that the troops ordering them into queues
for collecting drinking water will have the A2 as opposed to the A1
version. They might feel a little let down and question coalition
priorities if they knew it was the latter.

A teenager from the Welch was blown up by a UDA frag device a few days
previously. I have no opinion on the SA80 matter other than to note that I've
not actually encountered a favourable review of the weapon from a serving
soldier.

I always wanted to know why it was just as heavy as the SLR.

The Brits were stuck in a Saxon APC and had to eat, **** and pee in the darn
contraption which looks more like an armoured telephone repair van rather than a
real APC. I thought it looked like a relic from the 1950s.

You seem unfamiliar with standard MoD APC procurement policy in regard
to the Saxon, which ran along the lines of "find a Leyland production
line that needs to be kept open after losing their markets to the
Germans, and stick some armour on it".

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

On 29 Sep 2003 19:58:49 -0700, Steyr wrote:

I like the full furniture Steyr Deer rifle.

Mmm, with two triggers and hand-polished walnut stocks for full
Victorian authenticity when on a drive for some beaten Mau Mau. Only
when the season's open, mind.

I like rifles which look as if they
escaped from Kenya in the 1950s. I hate automatic rifles because the philosophy
behind them is entirely suspect.

One can either hit the bloody target or one can't. Of course that is just a
civilian perspective.

It took until 1956 before the Treasury would allow squaddies even a
semi-automatic version.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 07:06:16 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:



I always wanted to know why it was just as heavy as the SLR.


Overt poltical interference in the selection process to featherbed a
domestic supplier.

You seem unfamiliar with standard MoD APC procurement policy in regard
to the Saxon, which ran along the lines of "find a Leyland production
line that needs to be kept open after losing their markets to the
Germans, and stick some armour on it".


See above.


greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 08:36:25 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

You seem unfamiliar with standard MoD APC procurement policy in regard
to the Saxon, which ran along the lines of "find a Leyland production
line that needs to be kept open after losing their markets to the
Germans, and stick some armour on it".


See above.

No ****. I presume you instruct everybody telling a joke that their
punchline was a punchline.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:28:11 GMT, (The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised) wrote:


See above.

No ****. I presume you instruct everybody telling a joke that their
punchline was a punchline.


Oh my, we are a bit touchy today, who ****ed in your cornflakes.


greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea? Absorbent and yellow and pourous is he!
If nautical nonsense be something you wish! Then drop on the deck and flop like a fish!

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:43:07 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:43:47 -0400, John Hairell wrote:

[stuff snipped]

You've got to be kidding - anybody who might know such a fact isn't
going to be so stupid as to post it here.

Yes, I know. That's why I said "evidence" not "knowledge". I have
posted my reasons for believing strong ciphers are secure, and I
note no-one has attempted to refute my argument.

What you call "evidence" may not lead to the correct "knowledge".
What you believe (based on inferences about NSA made from very
incomplete public information) may not be true.

You made the assertion that "strong cyphers" are supposedly secure, so
prove it. It's not our job to prove they are insecure, it's your job
to prove they are secure - after all you are the one making the
allegation. Also, please cross-post to sci.crypt so that they can get
the benefit of your posting.

As an aside, as previous posters have noted, the Germans thought that
their Enigmas were secure because they had over one hundred sextillion
(1.074586873273 x 10 to the 23rd) "states" but their various
cryptosystems were indeed penetrated.

You also stated in a previous posting that NSA's computers are used
for "processing non-encrypted signals traffic, mostly". Please prove
this also.

You also posted that OTPs are unbreakable. That's true in theory but
not in reality. Several OTP-based cryptosystems have been broken,
maybe not using purely cryptanalytic means but broken nonetheless.

John Hairell )