A problem here where I work is that every application must have a different password and it must change every 90 days. Consequently everyone has a spreadsheet with his passwords written down because nobody could possibly remember them all.
It seems to me that with 2FA, one simple password is adequate. Two independent devices need to be compromised and brute force is ineffective since the turn around time is at least several seconds between tries.
My guess is that - with email, both the sender and the receiver must be using clients that are capable of negotiating the challenge-response wall.
Interestingly, with phone service, the recipient doesn't need anything (other than to tell their phone provider to turn it on if it's provided as an option.)
Of course, this doesn't completely answer your question but it does mean that the decision and implementation of the technology needed to provide this kind of wall is in the hands of phone companies rather than the unruly mass of ignorant individuals who use email.
But then, the phone companies who could implement such a scheme probably don't have a financial incentive to do so.
I'm not an archer of any rank. But my take on this is that he's trying to represent or reproduce the skill of archery when archery was essential to war and hunting. Great skill in an Olympic competition is certainly an impressive achievement but it may be worthless outside the clearly defined rules of competition.
Between your 120 bowman and this guy, which one wins in battle and which one brings home fresh meat for dinner. I think I'd rather have this guy on my side.
Being able to reliably hit a very small target at 70 yards at full draw is exactly what I would want for hunting. That game is easily spooked and can likely evade you better than you can chase it. Why in the world would you want to get any closer than necessary and be moving while attempting to shoot it?
Not to mention that his 10 shots at the beginning of the video are no where close to full draw. I'd suspect that even if he did hit an animal with hide that it would not be a lethal shot.
That's exactly my point. Olympic archery is at 70 yards, and they are very consistent at hitting the inner rings of the target. That extra distance would be great for hunting.
When archery was essential to war, it was still only "stand and loose" - foot archers typically planted stakes in front to ward off cavalry, or would be on hills or in front of woods. Basically stand still, shoot the buggers, run and hide if anyone charged.
As for hunting, that is extreme slowness, and perfect accuracy because you won't get a second shot, and if you move at all before loosing the animal moves too. Hunters wait.
So apart from firing in the saddle, archery was and is about stillness, accuracy and yes, in war, speed.
The guys able to put 30 arrows into the attacking targets at 50 paces will win the war, and the guys setting snares will fill the pot ;-)
It's weird that you don't see the benefit of being effective while moving when your rebuttal includes 'run'. Not to mention that there are plenty of situations where stakes/hills/woods as a static defense don't apply - if you're attacking; if you're sieging; attacking a town, fighting in the streets; if you're not taking part in a large set-piece battle; so on and so forth. If you're part of a small patrol and encounter the enemy, you fight them then and there, no time to plant stakes or move the site of the battle.
Likewise, you need to be able to move around as the battle progresses. There's no point standing behind your stakes if the enemy you need to put pressure on is 200 yards away over a meadow. All the zen-like calmness in the world and impregnable field position isn't going to help you if the enemy doesn't come within range.
The Commanche were also particularly effective at it. The combination of their horse riding and archery skills made them more lethal than the US Army, until the revolver was invented. Before the revolver, firing on horseback was a non-starter because reloading was almost impossible; a Commanche could fire dozens of arrows in the time it took one reload. I read about this in the book "Empire of the Summer Moon" by S. C. Gwynne.
While the notion that "stand and loose" was important in war seems sensible to me, the implication that mobility and shooting speed were irrelevant does not. Being able too shoot fast seems like an immensely useful skill when confronting a mass of enemies that move, have armor and actively try to avoid getting shot. More shots per minute would mean more chance to actually inflict damage.
Also, what about smaller confrontations that did not involve a wall of charging cavalry/footmen?
While the acrobatics is silly, what this guy is doing is impressive and indicate skills that could be applied more broadly.
I've been walking at lunchtime for over 10 years. For some reason, co-workers think they're being friendly and companionable when they come along. I hate hearing the cheerful: "Hey I'll come and walk with you."
NO. That's my time to be away from you guys. I use that time to think about what I have to do in the afternoon, what I need to include in the report that I'm writing, how I'm going to fix the sticky door in the basement, or what I'm going to get for my wife for her birthday. I don't want to discuss the merits of partially deflated footballs.
I find that I have to sneak out the door when nobody is looking.
I was assume that this was part of a structured bill of materials. Changing the rev level should be sufficient to identify the change and would not entail changing the BOM.
I'm going to make a strong guess that the rev level was incremented (the article doesn't mention rev levels). If so, I don't see anything wrong with using the same P/N. It's not like that part number exists elsewhere in the vehicle.
A problem here where I work is that every application must have a different password and it must change every 90 days. Consequently everyone has a spreadsheet with his passwords written down because nobody could possibly remember them all.
It seems to me that with 2FA, one simple password is adequate. Two independent devices need to be compromised and brute force is ineffective since the turn around time is at least several seconds between tries.