Answer / Explanation:
Eavesdropping attack is also sometimes refereed to as sniffing attack. It is simply the process by which an attacker or hacker tries to penetrate very suddenly into an unaware individuals network or server with the intention to steal information transmitted over the network or server through that computer.
To prevent such attack, there are several mean which include installing network monitoring software to check who else is connected to the network but the most common method of preventing such attack is to encrypt the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (http) and the way to do this is by securing it with a sort of security key.
On installing the security key, the network becomes encrypted and secured such that whatever network transmitted over the network becomes encrypted and unable to read. The protocol then converts to (https).
Answer:
Artefacts can influence our actions in several ways. They can be instruments, enabling and facilitating actions, where their presence affects the number and quality of the options for action available to us. They can also influence our actions in a morally more salient way, where their presence changes the likelihood that we will actually perform certain actions. Both kinds of influences are closely related, yet accounts of how they work have been developed largely independently, within different conceptual frameworks and for different purposes. In this paper I account for both kinds of influences within a single framework. Specifically, I develop a descriptive account of how the presence of artefacts affects what we actually do, which is based on a framework commonly used for normative investigations into how the presence of artefacts affects what we can do. This account describes the influence of artefacts on what we actually do in terms of the way facts about those artefacts alter our reasons for action. In developing this account, I will build on Dancy’s (2000a) account of practical reasoning. I will compare my account with two alternatives, those of Latour and Verbeek, and show how my account suggests a specification of their respective key concepts of prescription and invitation. Furthermore, I argue that my account helps us in analysing why the presence of artefacts sometimes fails to influence our actions, contrary to designer expectations or intentions.
When it comes to affecting human actions, it seems artefacts can play two roles. In their first role they can enable or facilitate human actions. Here, the presence of artefacts changes the number and quality of the options for action available to us.Footnote1 For example, their presence makes it possible for us to do things that we would not otherwise be able to do, and thereby adopt new goals, or helps us to do things we would otherwise be able to do, but in more time, with greater effort, etc
Explanation:
Technological artifacts are in general characterized narrowly as material objects made by (human) agents as means to achieve practical ends. ... Unintended by-products of making (e.g. sawdust) or of experiments (e.g. false positives in medical diagnostic tests) are not artifacts for Hilpinen.
Answer:
b
Explanation: because it says input file.read
Answer:
Part a : The SI unit of σ is Pascal.
Part b : The pressure is 414.28 psi.
Explanation:
Part a
The equation is given as
As per the dimensional analysis
![M=[N-m]\\y=[m]\\l=[m^4]](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=M%3D%5BN-m%5D%5C%5Cy%3D%5Bm%5D%5C%5Cl%3D%5Bm%5E4%5D)
So the equation becomes
![\sigma =\frac{[N-m][m]}{[m^4]}\\\sigma =\frac{[N][m^2]}{[m^4]}\\\sigma =\frac{[N]}{[m^{4-2}]}\\\sigma =\frac{[N]}{[m^{2}]}\\](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Csigma%20%3D%5Cfrac%7B%5BN-m%5D%5Bm%5D%7D%7B%5Bm%5E4%5D%7D%5C%5C%5Csigma%20%3D%5Cfrac%7B%5BN%5D%5Bm%5E2%5D%7D%7B%5Bm%5E4%5D%7D%5C%5C%5Csigma%20%3D%5Cfrac%7B%5BN%5D%7D%7B%5Bm%5E%7B4-2%7D%5D%7D%5C%5C%5Csigma%20%3D%5Cfrac%7B%5BN%5D%7D%7B%5Bm%5E%7B2%7D%5D%7D%5C%5C)
As the dimensions are of pressure so the SI unit of σ is Pascal.
Part b
Pressure in US customary base units is given in psi so
So
So the pressure is 414.28 psi.
Answer:
a) 4.1 kw
b) 4.68 tons
c) 4.02
Explanation:
Saturated vapor enters compressor at ( p1 ) = 2.6 bar
Saturated liquid exits the condenser at ( p2 ) = 12 bar
Isentropic compressor efficiency = 80%
Mass flow rate = 7 kg/min
A) Determine compressor power in KW
compressor power = m ( h2 - h1 )
= 7 / 60 ( 283.71 - 248.545 )
= 4.1 kw
B) Determine refrigeration capacity in tons = m ( h1 - h4 )
= 7/60 ( 248.545 - 107.34 )
= 16.47 kw = 4.68 tons
C) coefficient of performance ( COP )
= Refrigeration capacity / compressor power
= 16.47 / 4.1 = 4.02
Attached below is the beginning part of the solution
