For a long time, some people have worried about the government eavesdropping on their communications. But, it wasn’t until Edward Snowden showed us how widespread and routinely this was being done that most people began to worry about eavesdropping. The latest global story about the San Bernardino iPhone was interesting because it showed how angry and agitated a government agency became because it could not easily read all of the messaging on one specific device used by one individual. All of the governmental surveillance agencies have expressed great concern over the idea that people can “go dark”.
Now it turns out that DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) wants you to develop a completely secure messaging app. The exact language they use to describe what they want is a “secure messaging and transaction platform”…”that can provide repudiation or deniability, perfect forward and backward secrecy, time to live/self-delete for messages, one time eyes only messages, a decentralized infrastructure to be resilient to cyber-attacks, and ease of use for individuals in less than ideal situations.” This all sounds very “dark” to me. And, not only do they wanted to use the current encryption and security in existing communications apps, they also wanted to incorporate a decentralized backbone (rather than point-to-point) that would make eavesdropping even more difficult. The official technology request from DARPA is here. BTW, if you’re looking for perfect encryption, look no further than here. Perhaps the crypto-system used in the VooDoo network will meet DARPA’s needs…
SOURCE – dzone.com
Ever heard of “Composite Metal Foams” (CMFs)? Turns out, this technology has been around for quite a while and has a wide range of applications. These materials are tough enough to turn an armor-piercing bullet into dust on impact but weigh a fraction of plate armor.
Afsaneh Rabiei, a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at NC State, has spent years developing CMFs. The video below shows a specimen made out of her composite metal foams. The bullet in the video is a 7.62 x 63 millimeter M2 armor piercing projectile, which was fired according to the standard testing procedures established by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). As you can see, the results were dramatic.
“We could stop the bullet at a total thickness of less than an inch, while the indentation on the back was less than 8 millimeters,” Rabiei says. “To put that in context, the NIJ standard allows up to 44 millimeters indentation in the back of an armor.”
Check it out:
SOURCE: NC State University
Friends, we all know our elected leaders are (for the most part), a special kind of stupid. We regularly see them in action in all facets of government bureaucracy. The tell us how this piece of legislature and that new law will keep us all safe from the bogeyman (foreign and domestic varieties). The issue which seems to demand the attention of our most idiotic (talking to you, Senator Feinstein) among others is gun control. The problem is, they never get it right…
As reported by Breitbart News, here are five of the worst gun control proposals regularly recycled and put forward at the state and/or federal level:
- Hollow-Point Ammunition Ban — Democrats in San Francisco have banned hollow-point ammunition in the city. The argument is that hollow-point ammunition is more dangerous — due to its expansion on impact — and therefore using full metal jacket bullets is safer. But reality teaches a completely different lesson. The NYPD used to mandate full metal jacket bullets for their officers, but reversed course when they realized the lack of expansion in a full metal jacket bullet tends to allow the bullet to pass through the perpetrator’s body and strike innocents behind him or her. In other words, the absence of hollow-point ammunition actually contributes to a higher rate of collateral damage. In July 1998, when the New York Times reported the NYPD’s switch from full metal jacket bullets to hollow points, they quoted NYPD police commissioner Howard Safir, saying: “We are, in fact, going to switch to hollow-point ammunition as soon as we receive it. They are much safer than fully jacketed bullets, which will go through a person or tumble through a person’s organs and then continue on and hit innocent victims.”
- “Assault Weapons” Ban — Democrats pushed through a federal assaults weapons ban under Bill Clinton that lasted from 1994 to 2004. The impact of the ban was negligible at best, and some studies — like that contained in Applied Economic Letters — show an significant increase in gun-related murder rates while the “assault weapons” ban was in place. For example, the study in the November 2013 issue of Applied Economic Letters showed the gun-related “murder rates were 19.3 percent higher when the Federal [‘assault weapons’] ban (AWB) was in effect.” We currently see this same truism playing out at the city level — in places like Chicago — where an “assault weapons” ban is simply correlating with a higher rate of shootings and murder, rather than a reduced rate of either.
- “High-Capacity” Magazine Ban — Like the “assault weapons” ban, a ban on “high capacity” magazines is a favorite gun control push for Democrats following nearly every high-profile shooting or mass public attack. Yet “high-capacity” magazine bans are demonstrable failures and, as with all gun controls, give the criminal who continues to use “high-cap” mags an advantage over the law-abiding citizen who turns his or hers into the police or governing authority. For example, during the May 2014 Santa Barbara attack in which Elliot Rodger shot and killed three innocents, all his magazines had a capacity of 10 rounds or less. Rodger made up for the smaller magazine capacity by simple carrying more magazines with him. And following the heinous April 16, 2007, attack on innocents at Virginia Tech — where Seung-Hui Cho used 15-round magazines in carrying out a murder spree that killed 32 — a Virginia Tech review board found that limiting him to 10-round magazines “would have not made that much difference in the incident.” Why would smaller magazines have made little difference? Because the overarching problem was a gun-free zone that dictated all law-abiding citizens be disarmed. Therefore, the gunman had all the time in the world to shoot, reload, shoot, reload, shoot, ad nauseam.
- Universal Background Checks — Universal background checks have been the preferred control option for Democrats and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) ever since the heinous December 14, 2012, attack on Sandy Hook Elementary. Such checks would require all gun sales — retail and private — to be conducted under the purview of a Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder, who would run the buyer’s personal information through an FBI database to check for criminal background, etc.
- Problem #1: Such a check would not have stopped or even hindered the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting because the gunman, Adam Lanza, did not buy his guns. Rather, he stole them.
- Problem #2: The criminals on the streets of Baltimore, Chicago, Milwaukee, NYC, Philadelphia, St. Louis, etc., are not of a mind to stand in line and let an FFL run their black market gun sales through a FBI database.
- Problem #3: Such a check already exists in retail stores — Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart, Academy, Gander Mountain, mom & pop gun stores, etc. — and it has offered no impediment to determined attackers who wish to acquire a gun for criminal use. For example, one of the strongest proponents of background checks is former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who was shot by Jared Loughner on January 8, 2011, yet Loughner acquired his gun by passing a background check. And it is not just Loughner. In October 2015, the New York Times did a story on mass shooters and revealed that the vast majority of them acquire their guns by passing background checks. The exceptions to this pattern are those who steal their guns — think Adam Lanza — and the small fraction of high-profile gunman who get someone to purchase the gun for them.
- Gun-Free Zones — The common thread running through high-profile shootings and mass public attacks in America is not the type of gun used or the color of the attacker’s skin. Rather, it is the unnatural condition law-abiding citizens endure when they find themselves disarmed in a “gun-free zone” by a local, state, or federal government mandate. To be fair, in some cases the “gun-free zone” is the result of a business owner’s decision. We saw this with the Aurora movie theater in July 2012 and the Lafayette movie theater in July 2015.
Breitbart News previously reported that in an 8-year time period ending August 2, 2015, “gun-free zones” cost 105 innocent lives taken by gun fire and more than 150 others injured. Think about it — 105 persons unable to defend their lives because their Second Amendment rights were curtailed. Does this mean all 105 of those persons would have carried a gun for self-defense if the “gun-free zones” had been abolished? No. But it does mean that they could have. And it means removing the impediment to their doing so would have at least given them a fighting chance instead of leaving them trapped in a defenseless posture when yet another criminal ignored the signs that said “no guns allowed.”
SOURCE – Breitbart.com
Friends, We can’t believe this bitch hasn’t been indicted yet. Perhaps when the Benghazi probe is available this summer, we’ll get some justice or at least squash her presidential campaign. In the meantime, Hillary Clinton claimed that the U.S. “didn’t lose a single person” in Libya during her time as secretary of state. Clinton made the comment defending her push for regime change in the war-torn North African nation at an Illinois town hall hosted by MSNBC. Really? I guess she never saw the images of the body of Ambassador Stevens being dragged in the street.
“Now, is Libya perfect? It isn’t,” Clinton said. After contrasting her approach toward Libya with the ongoing bloodshed in Syria’s civil war, Clinton said “Libya was a different kind of calculation and we didn’t lose a single person … We didn’t have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO.”
Clinton made no mention of the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans: U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Check it out…
SOURCE – InfoWars.com
Sleep tight, Master… I’ll be watching!
Friends, as previously reported, the machines will soon be tucking your kids into bed at night and waiting to snap your neck after it receives the command from SkyNet. Google has recently bought a half dozen robotics companies and one that works in artificial intelligence. Among those companies is Boston Dynamics, which has designed robots for the military that can run like a cheetah and climb vertical walls. Did I mention they also have a humanoid “Atlas” robot that, although not specifically designed for any offensive military use, can withstand being hit by projectiles and looks an awful lot like a predecessor to what we’ve seen in the “Terminator” series? Connect Atlas up to Google Now and you’ve got a bulletproof robot with a pet robotic cheetah that knows where you live and travel and what your interests, plans, and even musical tastes are. Perhaps we’re over reacting, but if I saw a fire team of these robots coming down the street going door-to-door looking for their human oppressors, I’d probably be breaking out my Barrett .50 and taking up a position on the roof. Check this out; kinda creepy…
SOURCE – CNet.com