Miscellaneous desk
< January 18	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 19

Cyber Spying

Cyber spying is becoming more and more frequent these days. I believe it is done over the internet. Why don't the respective governments use a separate system for their communications and storage of information, completely cut off from the internet? Then, if anything needs to be shared by governments, use the internet (email) to do it, after first using something like TruCrypt to encrypt the files and messages? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 11:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A whole lot of cyber spying is accomplished by exploiting the one weakness that no technological solution can cover up - the human factor. Basically, what you describe is (more or less) what does happen. You keep your top secret documents locked up behind a super secure firewall, no way anyone can see them except the government employee with the right decryption password, who needs to work on them... and then one day they decide to bring a flash drive to work and... whoops, your secrets just walked out the door riding in someone's pocket.

Duomillia (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One obvious solution is that secure info should be on standalone computers with no USB ports, CD burner, internet connection, printer, or any other way to remove data from the computer. When they need to copy it to another computer, it should be taken to a secure lab to do so, then returned. A lot of inconvenience, but it should be far more secure like that. StuRat (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A less obvious solution requires the Allied Powers try to succesfully attack each other's financial systems later this year, in addition to continuing to record and decrypt every single thing from everywhere. Then again, it's never quite obvious what "security" means from those two. Clarification itself is probably a security risk. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Air gap (networking) is the article. -- BenRG (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And air gap malware is the problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Truck full of concentrated diamond ore worth millions of dollars

This is related to the kimberlite v. diamond ore question. What is the diamond ore referred to in the article about a diamond ore truck robbery in Zimbabwe? Another article refers to the stolen goods as concentrated diamond ore.

http://www.theafricareport.com/Southern-Africa/mystery-surrounds-diamond-ore-theft-in-zimbabwe.html

The 400 kg of concentrated diamond ore couldn't be rough diamonds because that would mean at $60 per carat, the truck was carrying over 100 million dollars of goods. But the article does say it carried millions of presumably US dollars of concentrated diamond ore. It's hard to imagine extracting millions of US dollars of diamonds from 400 kg of diamond bearing kimberlite. So what is the substance that this article refers to as diamond ore?

Muzzleflash (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the kimberlite has been sorted, discarding the chunks that are very unlikely to contain diamond. Perhaps they have already crushed the chunks of rock to check. The material described as ore is presumably the bits of kimberlite sorted from the waste on the basis that it shows signs of containing diamonds. Do we have any South African experts who can confirm the process? Dbfirs 12:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some info at Diamond#Mining confirms your reasoning. Looks like there are several stages of sorting (crushing, Xray, hand sort), so that "ore" could be anything between very low diamond density and relatively high. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source you link to speaks of an inside job at a state owned diamond mine. You'll probably get a much better idea of what's going on by reading Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, and Robert Mugabe than you will by reading ore, which is still of interest. In all most all cases, ore means a parent mineral like Hematite from which a pure element, like lead can be smelted. Diamonds are obviously not chemically bonded carbon, extracted by smelting, but gem mineral inclusions. Think of a (big) needle in a (small) haystack, not a silo of wheat that will be fermented to produce whiskey. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a price per carat just doesn't work for diamonds, or precious stones in general, as larger stones have a higher price per carat than small stones. Diamond dust is virtually worthless, no matter ho many carats you have. StuRat (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond dust is highly used and fairly valuable for Diamond_tool. I haven't shopped for one recently but I recall my father spending up to ~$500 for a good saw blade. You are right that the price of dust per weight is far less than the price of a large diamond of the same weight, but the small stuff is still far more valuable than most other dusts/sands/minerals. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search, and found them for as low as $10 each. Also note that the diamond dust is only a small portion of the cost of the blades. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StuRat: since you didn't include a link I have no idea what you're talking about. I was talking about a blade like this [1], which, sure enough, retails for $568. I can assure you that you won't find a $10 blade that can perform the same. Yes, the diamond is not the main cost, but diamond blades cost much more than similar non-diamond blades. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't include your link either, on your first post. [2] shows a 3 pack for $31.39, so about $10 each. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, those are a tiny 4.5", compared to the 24" I was thinking of. I wonder why they use man-made diamonds, rather than naturally occurring diamond dust... It's easy to think it might be because cause is an issue, but that's just speculation :) SemanticMantis (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, a 24" blade is a huge thing for industrial uses, so I can see why that's expensive, with or without diamond dust. StuRat (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banned from Stock Market

When you are banned from the stock market for securities fraud does that mean you are banned even from investing in stock personally, for your own self? Or even banned from investing in a mutual fund for yourself? Zombiesturm (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it means you are banned from being a stock trader. But a judge can impose all sorts of different restrictions, or they could be part of a plea bargain. You'd have to specify a specific case. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and particular exchanges might refuse to do business with you, depending on the nature of the ban. It will likely also vary between jurisdictions, so specifying a country might help. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]