Forums

Re: OT: The Truth About Predator Drones

Started by krw December 18, 2009
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:11:34 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>Eric Jacobsen wrote: >> On 12/21/2009 12:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote: >>> Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/20/2009 3:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote: >>> >>>>> A rate 1/2 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +2 dB has the >>>>> same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at an Eb/No of -1 dB. >>>>> >>>>> A rate 1/3 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +3.77 dB has >>>>> the same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at -1 dB. >>> >>>>> (Unless I'm confused, which has happened before...) >>> >>>> Doh! I think I went the wrong way with the 3db and 4.77dB differences. >>>> I get stuff like that backwards all the time. >>> >>> Okay, we're in sync, even if our hypothetical modem isn't. >>> >>>>> I'm not too skeptical. I would posit that GSM phones in their >>>>> basic 2G mode operate under conditions this bad, and 802.11 systems >>>>> at 1 mbps might also. >>> >>>> I'm less skeptical now. ;) >>> >>> Right. >>> >>> The AWGN channel exhibiting 10% raw BER is still 3 dB less noisy than >>> rate 1/3 BPSK capacity, and popular binary convolutional >>> codes generally start functioning when you're 2 dB to 3 dB from capacity. >>> >>> The near-channel-capacity codes are generally functional around 1 dB >>> from capacity, sometimes less. >>> >>> Steve >> >> Yeah, we're on the same page. Since the context was a satellite link, >> I'd still be skeptical that anyone would bother to use an R = 1/3 code >> over a satellite, just because of the spectral efficiency (since >> transponder bandwidth is muy expensive). For R = 1/2, which is more >> believable, my skepticism remains healthy. > >Remember: this is military money. Those birds are $30 million a pop. > >Jerry
Yer nuts. Satellites are $400 million each, and that is a commercial bird!
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:31:33 -0800, Son of a Sea Cook
<NotaBrewster@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:11:34 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > >>Eric Jacobsen wrote: >>> On 12/21/2009 12:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote: >>>> Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/20/2009 3:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote: >>>> >>>>>> A rate 1/2 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +2 dB has the >>>>>> same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at an Eb/No of -1 dB. >>>>>> >>>>>> A rate 1/3 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +3.77 dB has >>>>>> the same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at -1 dB. >>>> >>>>>> (Unless I'm confused, which has happened before...) >>>> >>>>> Doh! I think I went the wrong way with the 3db and 4.77dB differences. >>>>> I get stuff like that backwards all the time. >>>> >>>> Okay, we're in sync, even if our hypothetical modem isn't. >>>> >>>>>> I'm not too skeptical. I would posit that GSM phones in their >>>>>> basic 2G mode operate under conditions this bad, and 802.11 systems >>>>>> at 1 mbps might also. >>>> >>>>> I'm less skeptical now. ;) >>>> >>>> Right. >>>> >>>> The AWGN channel exhibiting 10% raw BER is still 3 dB less noisy than >>>> rate 1/3 BPSK capacity, and popular binary convolutional >>>> codes generally start functioning when you're 2 dB to 3 dB from capacity. >>>> >>>> The near-channel-capacity codes are generally functional around 1 dB >>>> from capacity, sometimes less. >>>> >>>> Steve >>> >>> Yeah, we're on the same page. Since the context was a satellite link, >>> I'd still be skeptical that anyone would bother to use an R = 1/3 code >>> over a satellite, just because of the spectral efficiency (since >>> transponder bandwidth is muy expensive). For R = 1/2, which is more >>> believable, my skepticism remains healthy. >> >>Remember: this is military money. Those birds are $30 million a pop. >> >>Jerry > > > Yer nuts. Satellites are $400 million each, and that is a commercial >bird!
AlwaysWrong gets it wrong once again. The "bird" in question was the Predator, not the Satellite, DimBulb.
Son of a Sea Cook wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:11:34 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > >> Eric Jacobsen wrote: >>> On 12/21/2009 12:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote: >>>> Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/20/2009 3:42 PM, Steve Pope wrote: >>>>>> A rate 1/2 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +2 dB has the >>>>>> same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at an Eb/No of -1 dB. >>>>>> >>>>>> A rate 1/3 coded system operating at an Eb/No of +3.77 dB has >>>>>> the same raw BER as an uncoded system operating at -1 dB. >>>>>> (Unless I'm confused, which has happened before...) >>>>> Doh! I think I went the wrong way with the 3db and 4.77dB differences. >>>>> I get stuff like that backwards all the time. >>>> Okay, we're in sync, even if our hypothetical modem isn't. >>>> >>>>>> I'm not too skeptical. I would posit that GSM phones in their >>>>>> basic 2G mode operate under conditions this bad, and 802.11 systems >>>>>> at 1 mbps might also. >>>>> I'm less skeptical now. ;) >>>> Right. >>>> >>>> The AWGN channel exhibiting 10% raw BER is still 3 dB less noisy than >>>> rate 1/3 BPSK capacity, and popular binary convolutional >>>> codes generally start functioning when you're 2 dB to 3 dB from capacity. >>>> >>>> The near-channel-capacity codes are generally functional around 1 dB >>>> from capacity, sometimes less. >>>> >>>> Steve >>> Yeah, we're on the same page. Since the context was a satellite link, >>> I'd still be skeptical that anyone would bother to use an R = 1/3 code >>> over a satellite, just because of the spectral efficiency (since >>> transponder bandwidth is muy expensive). For R = 1/2, which is more >>> believable, my skepticism remains healthy. >> Remember: this is military money. Those birds are $30 million a pop. >> >> Jerry > > > Yer nuts. Satellites are $400 million each, and that is a commercial > bird!
Predator, ijit! Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. &#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:18:59 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>Archimedes' Lever wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony :) isn't cracked? >>> >>> rick jones >> >> None of their stuff has ever been cracked. >> >> There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that >> circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY >> General Instrument crypto schema. > >Circumnavigated?
Yes, but only that system, and only until they found out.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:49:52 -0700, Eric Jacobsen
<eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

>On 12/22/2009 9:18 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: >> Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony :) isn't cracked? >>>> >>>> rick jones >>> >>> None of their stuff has ever been cracked. >>> >>> There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that >>> circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY >>> General Instrument crypto schema. >> >> Circumnavigated? > >Went around, I think. Like claiming the lock on the safe is >unpickable, but the hinge pins can be easily pulled. Nobody will bother >to break a weak code when the back door is open.
That is not what happened either, ya dope. The chips were being fabbed in greater number than those being sold to the set top box makers, and that meant that hot chips were going out the back door ... of the fab house. That has nothing to do with breaking any code anywhere.
On 12/22/2009 11:48 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:49:52 -0700, Eric Jacobsen > <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote: > >> On 12/22/2009 9:18 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: >>> Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones<rick.jones2@hp.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony :) isn't cracked? >>>>> >>>>> rick jones >>>> None of their stuff has ever been cracked. >>>> >>>> There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that >>>> circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY >>>> General Instrument crypto schema. >>> Circumnavigated? >> Went around, I think. Like claiming the lock on the safe is >> unpickable, but the hinge pins can be easily pulled. Nobody will bother >> to break a weak code when the back door is open. > > > That is not what happened either, ya dope. > > The chips were being fabbed in greater number than those being sold to > the set top box makers, and that meant that hot chips were going out the > back door ... of the fab house. That has nothing to do with breaking > any code anywhere.
I think you misread. You could try again, but I've not a lot of confidence in the outcome. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
On 12/22/2009 11:48 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:49:52 -0700, Eric Jacobsen > <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote: > >> On 12/22/2009 9:18 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: >>> Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones<rick.jones2@hp.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony :) isn't cracked? >>>>> >>>>> rick jones >>>> None of their stuff has ever been cracked. >>>> >>>> There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that >>>> circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY >>>> General Instrument crypto schema. >>> Circumnavigated? >> Went around, I think. Like claiming the lock on the safe is >> unpickable, but the hinge pins can be easily pulled. Nobody will bother >> to break a weak code when the back door is open. > > > That is not what happened either, ya dope. > > The chips were being fabbed in greater number than those being sold to > the set top box makers, and that meant that hot chips were going out the > back door ... of the fab house. That has nothing to do with breaking > any code anywhere.
I think you misread. You could try again, but I've not a lot of confidence in the outcome. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
On 12/22/2009 11:48 PM, Archimedes' Lever wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:49:52 -0700, Eric Jacobsen > <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote: > >> On 12/22/2009 9:18 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: >>> Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones<rick.jones2@hp.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony :) isn't cracked? >>>>> >>>>> rick jones >>>> None of their stuff has ever been cracked. >>>> >>>> There were chips sold that made receivers "all channel" devices that >>>> circumnavigated PPV choices, etc, but NOBODY... EVER... BROKE... ANY >>>> General Instrument crypto schema. >>> Circumnavigated? >> Went around, I think. Like claiming the lock on the safe is >> unpickable, but the hinge pins can be easily pulled. Nobody will bother >> to break a weak code when the back door is open. > > > That is not what happened either, ya dope. > > The chips were being fabbed in greater number than those being sold to > the set top box makers, and that meant that hot chips were going out the > back door ... of the fab house. That has nothing to do with breaking > any code anywhere.
I think you misread. You could try again, but I've not a lot of confidence in the outcome. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:59:34 -0500, "Michael A. TurdEl"
<mike.turdel@earthlink.net> wrote:

>What
Even my zero content, meaningless posts have more depth than any post you make. You are pathetic, TurdEl. mike.turdel@earthlink.net Hahaha.. that one will likely get through you filters when folks spam that addy. Simply because it is *close* to yours., your ISP will likely pass them to you. Since it is NOT yours, however, you cannot do a goddamned thing about it.
In article <9vwXm.36095$gd1.29445@newsfe05.iad>,
Eric Jacobsen  <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

" Maintaining synchronization down in that mud is a whole 'nuther
" issue, and satellite transponder bandwidth is expensive enough that
" it's very rare to see codes lower than R = 1/2.

Not everyone has to have lower codes at the same time; priority and
conditions.  Conditions can be automated; priority obviously has
administration overhead that is untrivial but could be done.  Start
with conditions and see if excellent priority administration is still
needed (beyond some rudimentary defaults).