A sender is employing public key cryptography to send a secret message to a receiver. Which one of the following statements is TRUE? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. A sender is employing public key cryptography to send a secret message to a receiver. Which one of the following statements is TRUE?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Consider a Program Graph (PG) with statements as nodes and control as edges. Which of the following is not true for any PG?....

QA->…………….means the annual financial statements and other statements prescribed under Rule 65 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Accounts) Rules, 2011?....

QA->In which year Sree Narayana Guru convened an inter –religious conference at Aluva were he gave the noble message of “One Caste, One religion and One God for men”?....

QA->When a key is pressed on the key board, which standard is used for converting the keystroke into corresponding bits?....

QA->In a database design, if every non-key attribute is functionally dependent on the primary key, then the relation will be in :....

MCQ->A sender is employing public key cryptography to send a secret message to a receiver. Which one of the following statements is TRUE?....

MCQ-> The current debate on intellectual property rights (IPRs) raises a number of important issues concerning the strategy and policies for building a more dynamic national agricultural research system, the relative roles of public and private sectors, and the role of agribusiness multinational corporations (MNCs). This debate has been stimulated by the international agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round. TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime. The agribusiness MNCs (along with pharmaceutical companies) played a leading part in lobbying for such a regime during the Uruguay Round negotiations. The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use. With strong support of their national governments, they were influential in shaping the agreement on TRIPs, which eventually emerged from the Uruguay Round. The current debate on TRIPs in India - as indeed elsewhere - echoes wider concerns about ‘privatisation’ of research and allowing a free field for MNCs in the sphere of biotechnology and agriculture. The agribusiness corporations, and those with unbounded faith in the power of science to overcome all likely problems, point to the vast potential that new technology holds for solving the problems of hunger, malnutrition and poverty in the world. The exploitation of this potential should be encouraged and this is best done by the private sector for which patents are essential. Some, who do not necessarily accept this optimism, argue that fears of MNC domination are exaggerated and that farmers will accept their products only if they decisively outperform the available alternatives. Those who argue against agreeing to introduce an IPR regime in agriculture and encouraging private sector research are apprehensive that this will work to the disadvantage of farmers by making them more and more dependent on monopolistic MNCs. A different, though related apprehension is that extensive use of hybrids and genetically engineered new varieties might increase the vulnerability of agriculture to outbreaks of pests and diseases. The larger, longer-term consequences of reduced biodiversity that may follow from the use of specially bred varieties are also another cause for concern. Moreover, corporations, driven by the profit motive, will necessarily tend to underplay, if not ignore, potential adverse consequences, especially those which are unknown and which may manifest themselves only over a relatively long period. On the other hand, high-pressure advertising and aggressive sales campaigns by private companies can seduce farmers into accepting varieties without being aware of potential adverse effects and the possibility of disastrous consequences for their livelihood if these varieties happen to fail. There is no provision under the laws, as they now exist, for compensating users against such eventualities. Excessive preoccupation with seeds and seed material has obscured other important issues involved in reviewing the research policy. We need to remind ourselves that improved varieties by themselves are not sufficient for sustained growth of yields. in our own experience, some of the early high yielding varieties (HYVs) of rice and wheat were found susceptible to widespread pest attacks; and some had problems of grain quality. Further research was necessary to solve these problems. This largely successful research was almost entirely done in public research institutions. Of course, it could in principle have been done by private companies, but whether they choose to do so depends crucially on the extent of the loss in market for their original introductions on account of the above factors and whether the companies are financially strong enough to absorb the ‘losses’, invest in research to correct the deficiencies and recover the lost market. Public research, which is not driven by profit, is better placed to take corrective action. Research for improving common pool resource management, maintaining ecological health and ensuring sustainability is both critical and also demanding in terms of technological challenge and resource requirements. As such research is crucial to the impact of new varieties, chemicals and equipment in the farmer’s field, private companies should be interested in such research. But their primary interest is in the sale of seed materials, chemicals, equipment and other inputs produced by them. Knowledge and techniques for resource management are not ‘marketable’ in the same way as those inputs. Their application to land, water and forests has a long gestation and their efficacy depends on resolving difficult problems such as designing institutions for proper and equitable management of common pool resources. Public or quasi-public research institutions informed by broader, long-term concerns can only do such work. The public sector must therefore continue to play a major role in the national research system. It is both wrong and misleading to pose the problem in terms of public sector versus private sector or of privatisation of research. We need to address problems likely to arise on account of the public-private sector complementarity, and ensure that the public research system performs efficiently. Complementarity between various elements of research raises several issues in implementing an IPR regime. Private companies do not produce new varieties and inputs entirely as a result of their own research. Almost all technological improvement is based on knowledge and experience accumulated from the past, and the results of basic and applied research in public and quasi-public institutions (universities, research organisations). Moreover, as is increasingly recognised, accumulated stock of knowledge does not reside only in the scientific community and its academic publications, but is also widely diffused in traditions and folk knowledge of local communities all over. The deciphering of the structure and functioning of DNA forms the basis of much of modern biotechnology. But this fundamental breakthrough is a ‘public good’ freely accessible in the public domain and usable free of any charge. Various techniques developed using that knowledge can however be, and are, patented for private profit. Similarly, private corporations draw extensively, and without any charge, on germplasm available in varieties of plants species (neem and turmeric are by now famous examples). Publicly funded gene banks as well as new varieties bred by public sector research stations can also be used freely by private enterprises for developing their own varieties and seek patent protection for them. Should private breeders be allowed free use of basic scientific discoveries? Should the repositories of traditional knowledge and germplasm be collected which are maintained and improved by publicly funded organisations? Or should users be made to pay for such use? If they are to pay, what should be the basis of compensation? Should the compensation be for individuals or (or communities/institutions to which they belong? Should individual institutions be given the right of patenting their innovations? These are some of the important issues that deserve more attention than they now get and need serious detailed study to evolve reasonably satisfactory, fair and workable solutions. Finally, the tendency to equate the public sector with the government is wrong. The public space is much wider than government departments and includes co- operatives, universities, public trusts and a variety of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Giving greater autonomy to research organisations from government control and giving non- government public institutions the space and resources to play a larger, more effective role in research, is therefore an issue of direct relevance in restructuring the public research system.Which one of the following statements describes an important issue, or important issues, not being raised in the context of the current debate on IPRs?
....

MCQ-> Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow: An effective way of describing what interpersonal communication is or is not, is perhaps to capture the underlying beliefs using specific game analogies. Communication as Bowling: The bowling model of message delivery is probably the most widely held view of communication. I think that’s unfortunate. This model sees the bowler as the sender, who delivers the ball, which is the message. As it rolls down the lane (the channel), clutter on the boards (noise) may deflect the ball (the message). Yet if it is aimed well, the ball strikes the passive pins (the target audience) with a predictable effect. In this one - way model of communication, the speaker (bowler) must take care to select a precisely crafted message (ball) and practice diligently to deliver it the same way every time. Of course, that makes sense only if target listeners are interchangeable, static pins waiting to be bowled over by our words - which they aren’t. This has led some observers to propose an interactive model of interpersonal communication. Communication as Ping - Pong: Unlike bowling, Ping - Pong is not a solo game. This fact alone makes it a better analogy for interpersonal communication. One party puts the conversational ball in play, and the other gets into position to receive. It takes more concentration and skill to receive than to serve because while the speaker (server) knows where the message is going, the listener (receive) doesn’t. Like a verbal or nonverbal message, the ball may appear straightforward yet have a deceptive spin. Ping - Pong is a back - and - forth game; players switch roles continuously. One moment the person holding the paddle is an initiator; the next second the same player is a responder, gauging the effectiveness of his or her shot by the way the ball comes back. The repeated adjustment essential for good play closely parallels the feedback process described in a number of interpersonal communication theories. Communication as Dumb Charades The game of charades best captures the simultaneous and collaborative nature of interpersonal communication. A charade is neither an action, like bowling a strike, nor an interaction, like a rally in Ping - Pong. It’s a transaction. Charades is a mutual game; the actual play is cooperative. One member draws a title or slogan from a batch of possibilities and then tries to act it out visually for teammates in a silent mini drama. The goal is to get at least one partner to say the exact words that are on the slip of paper. Of course, the actor is prohibited from talking out loud. Suppose you drew the saying “God helps those who help themselves.” For God you might try folding your hands and gazing upward. For helps you could act out offering a helping hand or giving a leg - up boost over a fence. By pointing at a number of real or imaginary people you may elicit a response of them, and by this point a partner may shout out, “God helps those who help themselves.” Success. Like charades, interpersonal communication is a mutual, on - going process of sending, receiving, and adapting verbal and nonverbal messages with another person to create and alter images in both of our minds. Communication between us begins when there is some overlap between two images, and is effective to the extent that overlap increases. But even if our mental pictures are congruent, communication will be partial as long as we interpret them differently. The idea that “God helps those who help themselves’ could strike one person as a hollow promise, while the other might regard it as a divine stamp of approval for hard work. Dumb Charade goes beyond the simplistic analogy of bowling and ping pong. It views interpersonal communications as a complex transaction in which overlapping messages simultaneously affect and are affected by the other person and multiple other factors.The meaning CLOSEST to ‘interchangeable’ in the ‘Communication as Bowling’ paragraph is:
....

MCQ-> Based on the information answer the questions which follow.An agent has to send a secret message to CBI office in Delhi. He needs to compile his message using following 12 code words- Scare, Logical, Mouse, Beauty, Helping, Roses, Cats, Doctor, Arguments. Crude. Ferry and Mineral. The agent compiles the coded message and delivers it to CBI office in form of a $$4\times3$$ matrix. Each coded word has been allocated a position in the matrix ($$1\times2$$ position represents row 1 and column 2). The clues to compile the secret message are: i. The words in $$2\times1$$ and $$3\times1$$ have the same number of letters. ii. Roses is to the immediate left of Beauty and Mineral is immediately above Roses. iii. The word in $$4\times3$$ is shorter than the word in $$1\times2$$. iv. Ferry is separated from Helping horizontally by only one word Logical. v. Arguments is at position $$2\times3$$ in the matrix and the word immediately below it has odd number of letters.vi. Crude and Doctor are in the same horizontal row and Crude is to the right of Doctor. vii. Cats is not in the same row or column as Mouse.The product of the position of a coded word is 8. Identify the word.
....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questionsOnce a king saw some young boys pelting stones on a snake. He prevented the boys from killing the snake. Thus he saved its life.The snake, which was the King of the Snake World, thanked him and favoured him with a supernatural gift by which he could understand the language of any animal. But he warned him that that divulgence of the secret would cost him his life. One day, when the King was sitting in his garden and enjoying breakfast, a small portion of the sweet fell on the ground.Soon he heard an ant shouting, “My God”, what a big wagon-ful of sweet has fallen and there is none to consume it.Ah ! I can enjoy all, now.”Hearing this, the King smiled and chuckled.The queen, who was sitting next to him,was curious to note the changing countenance of the King.She asked him to tell her the reason for the smile. But the King kept silence,she attacked his self-respect by calling him a “liar” and muttered that all his expressions of endearment like-You are dearer to me than my very life”.-were nothing but a pack of lies.The King, however,could not bear the attacks on his self-respect and eventually conceded to divulge the secret on the following day in the royal,garden; and made up his mind to sacrifice his life. A donkey overheard the King’s resolve and decided to save him,because the King was righteous.So, he picked up one of his friends-the goat and they both decided to save the King. Next day, when the King and his retinues were on the way to the royal park,the donkey and the goat stood conversing on one side of the path.The King overheard the goat saying to the donkey, “You are a fool but not as big a fool as in the king. “Having heard so, the King was curious to know as to why was he being called a “bigger fool”. So, he said to the goat. “Pray, then tell me what to do as I am now committed to tell her on her back”. When the King reached the garden he said to the queen “I am now ready to tell you the secret on the condition that you are willing to receive one hundred lashes in return”.The queen considered the condition a joke and nodded in agreement.The King then waved at one of his guards to lash her with all his power.And no sooner than she received two lashes she wailed and shouted “No ! No ! Stop, do not lash me ! I don’t want to know the secret now”. The King then said scornfully, “You wanted to know the secret at the cost of my life, but now you don’t want to know because you have to save your skin.You deserve a few more lashes.”But before he could order his man to give her a few more lashes, the King’s trustworthy minister intervened and requested him to forgive her.Thus the queen was not lashed further, yet she received the same honour and dignity.Why did the snake give a gift to the King ?
....