huawei

Sat Jun 15 00:46:26 UTC 2013

It is if you're trying to figure out something far away, smoke signals
come to mind (seriously).

Any amount of noise seen (aside from AWGN, obviously) in the world is not
a big deal. We have pretty neat ways to clean up noise in bandwidth
channels. ;)

http://www.comtechefdata.com/technologies/doubletalk is one of the plays
we roll out all the time.

Applied Signal (father of ninja magic mentioned above) had offices in
Crypto City, but were eaten by Raytheon a while back and I'm unsure if
they're still around. Food for thought, but really - don't sweat the noise.

On 6/14/13 5:34 PM, "Scott Helms" <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote:

>Is it possible?  Yes, but it's not feasible because the data rate would be
>too low.  That's what I'm trying to get across.  There are lots things
>that
>can be done but many of those are not useful.
>
>I could encode communications in fireworks displays, but that's not
>effective for any sort of communication system.
>On Jun 14, 2013 8:13 PM, "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/14/13, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote:
>> > Really? In a completely controlled network then yes, but not in a
>> > production system.  There is far too much random noise and actual
>>latency
>> > for that to be feasible.
>>
>> I think you might be applying an oversimplified assumption the
>> situation.   Noise limits the capacity of a channel,  and increases
>> the number of gyrations required to encode a bit, so that it can be
>> received without error.
>>
>> The degree of 'random noise',  'actual latency variation',  and
>> 'natural packet ordering'  can be estimated, to identify the noise.
>>
>> Even with noise, you can figure out,  that the  average value which
>> the errors were centered around increased by  5ms or 10ms,  when a
>> sequence of packets with certain sizes,  certain checksum values,  and
>> certain  ephemeral ports  were   processed in a certain sequence,
>> after a sufficient number of repetitions.
>>
>> --
>> -JH
>>