Driver to drive?

On Dec 22, 1:14 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 22, 5:12 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:



On Dec 22, 7:32 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 20, 4:27 pm, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:36:54 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don

Klipstein) wrote:
In <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Slomanwrote in part:

On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

SNIP to edit for space

That is what the politicians are trying to make it.  Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?

They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.

 At this point, I would like to jump in to say that "the scientific case
is closed" for existence of AGW, and magnitude thereof is otherwise.

Or maybe even the sign.

John Larkin disregards physics once again. More CO2 in the atmosphere
means higher global temperatures.

No it doesn't.  If from a volcano, the dust in the air lowers
temperatures.

But the dust doesn't stay up in the air for all that long - nowhere
near as long as the CO2.

That's a different point. Higher CO2 does not mean that temperatures
immediately rise.

 Ditto for combustion particulates ('global dimming'), a-
bomb debris, agriculture dust, offset by albedo effects, offset
by....the unknowable.

Since we've got lots of history of the prompt and sustained effects of
volcanic eruptions, atom bomb tests, forest fires and SO2 emissions
from power station smoke-stacks, this is scarcely unknowable. You
obviously don't know much about it, but inexpert opinion is just
noise, not matter how forcefully expressed.

You've forgotten Jimmy Hansen's comments re: global dimming then? He
was surprised. He thought he'd have to double Finnegan's CO2 forcing
Finagling Factor.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html

NARRATOR: In other words, while the human greenhouse
effect has produced 2.6 to three watts of extra energy
for every square meter of the Earth, global dimming
has subtracted about 1.5 watts, so, more than half
the warming effect of our greenhouse emissions has
been masked by the cooling effect of particle pollution.

Perhaps this is why, despite a large rise in the
concentration of greenhouse gases, until recently,
the temperature rise has been hard for most of us
to notice.

JAMES HANSEN: In a way, it is unfortunate that the
small particles were in the atmosphere because we
would have realized much earlier that the...how
strong the greenhouse effect is, and would have
had more time to make the adjustments that are
going to be necessary to slow down and eventually
stop the growth of greenhouse gases.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Dec 22, 11:34 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 22, 4:55 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 19, 10:29 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.

Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense".

Finnegan's Finagling Factor: that number which, added to,
subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the number you
actually got, gives you the result you really wanted.

This is a serious misreading of what I was saying, as would be obvious
to anybody who had gone on to read the substance of what I wrote. The
Wikipedea discussion of the University of Alabama at Hintsville's
(UAH) correction from 5.1 to 5.2 points out that

/quote

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that
they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data
measurements and analyses showing warming in line with that estimated
by climate models. In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the
satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 °C per decade,
compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 ą 0.06 °C per decade.
The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as
noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with
each other.

Christy et al. (2007) find that the tropical temperature trends from
radiosondes matches closest with his v5.2 UAH dataset.[17]
Furthermore, they assert there is a growing discrepancy between RSS
and sonde trends beginning in 1992, when the NOAA-12 satellite was
launched[18]. This research found that the tropics were warming, from
the balloon data, +0.09 (corrected to UAH) or +0.12 (corrected to RSS)
or 0.05 K (from UAH MSU; ą0.07 K room for error) a decade.

/end quote

Since the corrections were based on a more thorough analysis of the
way orbital decay affects the satellite observations, this isn't
Finagle factoring, but a way of making better sense of the data. That
the improved processing brings the results better into line with
independent observations of the same regions is a bonus and provides
some confidence that the investigators have finally concentrated their
attention on aspects of the data processing that needed it.

Or, alternatively, calls into question the utility of satellite-based
surface temperature inferences, since these have to made through
numerous interface layers & obstructions.

Either they're reliable indicators of surface temp. and we're not
warming, or they're not reliable.

Regardless, their version doesn't inspire confidence: that they a)
measured and published wrong data and b) _now_, _this time_ they've
really got it right.

 In
this particular case, the University of Alabama at Huntsville had been
putting out data that was curiously out of whack with everybody else's
data for quite some time. Spencer and Christy weren't exactly
energetic about checking out their data-processing for possible
problems, and ended up with a certain amount of egg on their faces
when they finally got around to replacing verion 5.1 of their data-
processing package with version 5.2, which brought their data a lot
closer to consilience with the rest of the world.

Consilience - the process of getting a lot of different and
independent sources to fit together into a consistent picture of the
world - is a concept that appeals to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

It's a very low frequency word, but an absolutely fundamental concept..

Consilience is using one /technique/ as a reference to improve
another, grinding one straight edge against another to make both
truer.

Which is exactly what happend here

Adjusting your data to match your theory?

The UAH were adjusting their data processing, not their raw data, to
correct for problems that other investigators had demonstrated to be
signficant.

The only theory invlovlved here is the oen that say the same lump of
gas should have the same temperature at the same time if you measure
it with several different instruments by several different techniques.

But they tweaked their data to match tweaked data. That corrupts
both.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

 Adjusting multiple data
sets so they agree, corrupting all so that none is true?

If that had been what was going on, it would have been reprehensible.

Sir Mr. Raveninghorde posted some quotes and sources to that effect.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Dec 22, 1:06 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 22, 6:29 pm, John Larkin

Or perhaps the increased velocity of communications and pressure to
publish has changed the time response. The real issue is whether
experimental results are influenced by the numbers from other
experimenters, or by desired results, namely by psychological
pressures. In the AGW case, it sure looks like it is, because the
choice of "corrections" is arbitrary.

We know that you'd like to think so. If you said that in a
sufficiently public forum, you'd be - very rightly - sued for libel.

John's post? Not libel. READ_ME_HARRY.TXT says as much, and, in the
USA, truth is an absolute defense.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Dec 22, 9:30 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 22, 1:14 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 22, 5:12 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 22, 7:32 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 20, 4:27 pm, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:36:54 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don

Klipstein) wrote:
In <61527070-2f70-4e2b-b197-d1c6fee7f...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups..com>,
Bill Slomanwrote in part:

On Dec 18, 8:08 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

SNIP to edit for space

That is what the politicians are trying to make it.  Did you not note
the lack of scientists at the Copenhagen meeting?

They weren't needed. The scientific case is closed. Most politicians
are busy working out how to deal with the consequences.

 At this point, I would like to jump in to say that "the scientific case
is closed" for existence of AGW, and magnitude thereof is otherwise.

Or maybe even the sign.

John Larkin disregards physics once again. More CO2 in the atmosphere
means higher global temperatures.

No it doesn't.  If from a volcano, the dust in the air lowers
temperatures.

But the dust doesn't stay up in the air for all that long - nowhere
near as long as the CO2.

That's a different point.

Funny you should mention that. I was talking about CO2 and suddenly
you drag in volcanoes, a-bomb tests, forest fires and unspecified
particulates, in order to distract attention from the point under
discussion.

 Higher CO2 does not mean that temperatures
immediately rise.

When the sun comes up in the morning, temperatures immediately rise.
All other things being equal, more CO2 in the atmosphere means that
the temperature will rise somewhat further. If there is something else
going on in the atmosphere this can also affect temperature, but
that's not what we are talking about.

 Ditto for combustion particulates ('global dimming'), a-
bomb debris, agriculture dust, offset by albedo effects, offset
by....the unknowable.

Since we've got lots of history of the prompt and sustained effects of
volcanic eruptions, atom bomb tests, forest fires and SO2 emissions
from power station smoke-stacks, this is scarcely unknowable. You
obviously don't know much about it, but inexpert opinion is just
noise, not matter how forcefully expressed.

You've forgotten Jimmy Hansen's comments re: global dimming then?  He
was surprised.  He thought he'd have to double Finnegan's CO2 forcing
Finagling Factor.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3310_sun.html

 NARRATOR: In other words, while the human greenhouse
  effect has produced 2.6 to three watts of extra energy
  for every square meter of the Earth, global dimming
  has subtracted about 1.5 watts, so, more than half
  the warming effect of our greenhouse emissions has
  been masked by the cooling effect of particle pollution.

  Perhaps this is why, despite a large rise in the
  concentration of greenhouse gases, until recently,
  the temperature rise has been hard for most of us
  to notice.

JAMES HANSEN: In a way, it is unfortunate that the
  small particles were in the atmosphere because we
  would have realized much earlier that the...how
  strong the greenhouse effect is, and would have
  had more time to make the adjustments that are
  going to be necessary to slow down and eventually
  stop the growth of greenhouse gases.

Why would I need to remember such a banal and obvious point?

I didn't notice James Hansen mentioning any "Finnegan's CO2 forcing
Finagling Factor" which does seem to be a figment of your fertile and
undisciplined imagination, like your secret advisor within the heart
of the global modelling communitee.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[krw]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:14:16 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 22, 1:06 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 6:29 pm, John Larkin

Or perhaps the increased velocity of communications and pressure to
publish has changed the time response. The real issue is whether
experimental results are influenced by the numbers from other
experimenters, or by desired results, namely by psychological
pressures. In the AGW case, it sure looks like it is, because the
choice of "corrections" is arbitrary.

We know that you'd like to think so. If you said that in a
sufficiently public forum, you'd be - very rightly - sued for libel.

John's post? Not libel. READ_ME_HARRY.TXT says as much, and, in the
USA, truth is an absolute defense.

IOW, Slowman doesn't like what John said so, like the good Europeon he
is, issues a threat of bankruptcy for daring to state an inconvenient
truth.

 

[lurch]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:35:16 -0800, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:54:32 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

It is indeed. AWG does not specify an explicit conductor CSA.

AWG does not specify conductors. It specifies *wires*. There are other
types of wire than electrical.

You can tune a piano and even suspend a bridge!

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:35:18 -0800, the renowned Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:17:14 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Any given wire gauge covers a wide range of
cross-sectional areas.

Rubbish

Stranded wire does vary somewhat in total conductor cross-sectional
area for a given gauge size, but I don't think that is unique to AWG
wire.

For example, depending on stranding, an AWG 24 wire can be 384 to 475
circular mils in x-sectional area. 404 is the nominal area for a solid
AWG 24, so it's -5% to +18%.

http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~ecelabs/appnotes/PDF/techdat/swc.pdf



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[lurch]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:12:07 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

Well, it IS used for things other than magnets. To be pedantic it's *enamelled* btw.

http://wires.co.uk/acatalog/cu_enam.html

You're being more provincial than pedantic there. ;-)

Yes, and it is called out in diameter, not area, so he is in left
field.

We sell by weight because the wire makers over here were used to
supplying much larger parcels to a customer, and the customer knows how
many feet a given weight of a pallet of wire is as the vendor supplies a
chart or declaration of the specification.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:43:06 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:25:39 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:06:22 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Real encryption is pretty cheap. The only complication anymore is key
management. No matter what you do that's a problem, so might just as
well make the encryption good. Rag heads aren't the only potential
enemy.

Or simply change the key so often that any brute force hackers will
fail to decrypt anything inside any effective time frame.

...and changing keys is free (hint: key management)? I know it's
difficult for you DimBilb but read before replying.

Actually, it is difficult for you, because it is not a public key
system.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:41:06 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:24:13 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:04:59 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:20:47 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:05:07 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:44:12 -0800 (PST), Mark <makolber@yahoo.com
wrote:



Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for unencrypted
analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I know, there
exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken already. The
problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing information so
that no part of the output looks like any part of the input. The
satellite link is filled with errors and distortion that have to be
contained to retain adequate video quality.

DS

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15 years
ago for HBO?

It can obviously be done. It just requires different, perhaps less
efficient, error correction algorithms which may mean lower S/N
required.

Wrong. It just requires MORE FEC.

AlswasWrong is once again wrong. Surprise everyone!


You're an idiot. Most digital links can handle up to 10 percent bit
error rate before correction coding fails to fix it.

And those error bits don't cost anything to send?

snipped retarded playground child horseshit


Yeah, asshole... it's called 'Link Budget'.

 

[krw]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:11:52 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:43:06 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:25:39 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:06:22 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Real encryption is pretty cheap. The only complication anymore is key
management. No matter what you do that's a problem, so might just as
well make the encryption good. Rag heads aren't the only potential
enemy.

Or simply change the key so often that any brute force hackers will
fail to decrypt anything inside any effective time frame.

...and changing keys is free (hint: key management)? I know it's
difficult for you DimBilb but read before replying.

Actually, it is difficult for you, because it is not a public key
system.

You're such a dumbshit, AlwaysWrong. *ALL* crypto systems require key
management. Indeed that's the downfall of most. Unlike you, DimBulb,
key management is *not* simple.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <ccb44845-5bfa-4353-bb02-b5bbac009123@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 22, 11:34 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 22, 4:55 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 19, 10:29 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Dec 20, 1:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5740/1548

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

What a mess! People seem to keep trying various corrections until they
get what they want.

Actually, the correct formulation is "until the data makes sense".

Finnegan's Finagling Factor: that number which, added to,
subtracted from, multiplied by, or divided into the number you
actually got, gives you the result you really wanted.

This is a serious misreading of what I was saying, as would be obvious
to anybody who had gone on to read the substance of what I wrote. The
Wikipedea discussion of the University of Alabama at Hintsville's
(UAH) correction from 5.1 to 5.2 points out that

/quote

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that
they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data
measurements and analyses showing warming in line with that estimated
by climate models. In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the
satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 °C per decade,
compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 ą 0.06 °C per decade.
The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as
noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with
each other.

Christy et al. (2007) find that the tropical temperature trends from
radiosondes matches closest with his v5.2 UAH dataset.[17]
Furthermore, they assert there is a growing discrepancy between RSS
and sonde trends beginning in 1992, when the NOAA-12 satellite was
launched[18]. This research found that the tropics were warming, from
the balloon data, +0.09 (corrected to UAH) or +0.12 (corrected to RSS)
or 0.05 K (from UAH MSU; ą0.07 K room for error) a decade.

/end quote

Since the corrections were based on a more thorough analysis of the
way orbital decay affects the satellite observations, this isn't
Finagle factoring, but a way of making better sense of the data. That
the improved processing brings the results better into line with
independent observations of the same regions is a bonus and provides
some confidence that the investigators have finally concentrated their
attention on aspects of the data processing that needed it.

Or, alternatively, calls into question the utility of satellite-based
surface temperature inferences, since these have to made through
numerous interface layers & obstructions.

Either they're reliable indicators of surface temp. and we're not
warming, or they're not reliable.

Regardless, their version doesn't inspire confidence: that they a)
measured and published wrong data and b) _now_, _this time_ they've
really got it right.

<SNIP from here>

I doubt the radiosonde data was tweaked. I have yet to hear a complaint
about the radiosonde data.

Meanwhile, the UAH index, more specifically the one for lower
troposphere, are by Christy and Spencer - as in the Spencer at
www.drroyspencer.com. Is anyone here going to call him a warmingist?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

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.

 

[krw]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:14:01 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:41:06 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:24:13 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:04:59 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:20:47 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:05:07 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:44:12 -0800 (PST), Mark <makolber@yahoo.com
wrote:



Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for unencrypted
analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I know, there
exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken already. The
problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing information so
that no part of the output looks like any part of the input. The
satellite link is filled with errors and distortion that have to be
contained to retain adequate video quality.

DS

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15 years
ago for HBO?

It can obviously be done. It just requires different, perhaps less
efficient, error correction algorithms which may mean lower S/N
required.

Wrong. It just requires MORE FEC.

AlswasWrong is once again wrong. Surprise everyone!


You're an idiot. Most digital links can handle up to 10 percent bit
error rate before correction coding fails to fix it.

And those error bits don't cost anything to send?

snipped retarded playground child horseshit


Yeah, asshole... it's called 'Link Budget'.

AlwaysWrong is always so wrong. Read the thread again, DimBulb. I
know it'll take you a long time but maybe if you leave mommy's hamper
alone tonight she'll help you with the big words.

 

[TheJoker]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:27:05 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

HiggsField wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:56:55 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Rick Jones wrote:

In comp.protocols.tcp-ip Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for
unencrypted analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I
know, there exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken
already. The problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing
information so that no part of the output looks like any part of
the input. The satellite link is filled with errors and distortion
that have to be contained to retain adequate video quality.

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15 years
ago for HBO?

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony isn't cracked?


You do know there were two levels of Videocipher? VC-1 was designed
for military applications.

Total bullshit. It was designed for backhaul work. It was also used
by companies like General Motors, to feed training seminars, etc. to all
their dealerships. They were one of the first OTA educational systems of
that depth.

ALL the major networks ended up using it, and that is what made GI the
de facto standard, and is why they were UNsuccessfully sued as a
monopoly. Uplink encoding is used by any content provider, and they must
use GI gear because that is what all the birds use. So they ARE a
monopoly, by default, but it is not their fault all the networks went
with their gear.

VC-II was a very scaled down version done for
HBO in the early '80s.

VC-I was in use in 1983 and from then on.

It was retired on the last day of last year, 2008.

VC-II (1985)"was done for" satellite receivers, uplink encoders and
decoders, and backhaul work, not just for HBO. It was retired in 1993 as
piracy had to be nipped out of the system. That was VC-II RS and that is
where the false keys and rolling keys and such came from. Then came
DigiCipher and DigiCipher II.

I installed one of the first VC-II units for
beta testing for HBO at United Video in Cincinnati, Ohio. That would
make it 25 years.

It appears that you understand basic math.

VC-II was hardware items for cable system operators, sure, but it was
ALSO hardware items for use in end user satellite set-top boxes, which
have nothing to do with cable.


ESD, dimbulb.

You're a total retard, TurdEl.

 

[lurch]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:12:28 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
wrote:

In comp.protocols.tcp-ip Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:
I just assumed that, since it is the US military, employing a drone
to do semi-stealth reconnaisance, that a basic requirement would be
that young kids who probably earn < $100/month should not be able to
intercept the stealth video. My bad.

It isn't as if the presumed young kids who earn < $100/month came-up
with the way to grab the feeds - they are simply using something that
someone else produced. Not too unlike say the potentially young kids
in the U.S. military who might be receiving the drone feeds "in the
field."

rick jones

Or from the Firesign Theater "Eat or Be Eaten" line... "They're giving
licenses to mutants..."

 

[lurch]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:41:22 -0800 (PST), Malachy Moses
<malachy.moses@gmail.com> wrote:

From today's newspapers (Dec 17, 2009):

"Iraq insurgents hack into video feeds from US drones
"Insurgents in Iraq have hacked into live video feeds from unmanned
American drone aircraft, US media reports say."

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8419147.stm among many
others.

Apparently, the insurgents have been using off-the-shelf software
called SkyGrabber to view the live video feeds from the drones. So
the word "hacked" in the article is not entirely accurate, since it
implies that effort was involved, whereas in actuality the SkyGrabber
software made it almost effortless.

OR they are grabbing it via EMI or tap from right next to the ground
station (base), and the entire claim of grabbing a live link is bogus.

I cannot imagine that TEMPEST nightmare though.

 

[UltimatePatriot]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:40:20 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
<jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

All that money they spent to make a wireless link that my 14-year-old
niece could have set up!

Where do you get this retarded horseshit from?

Being from your loins, I am having trouble believing that she could
even manage the operation of a military connector, much less an array of
them. Then again... even an RJ-45 might pose a difficulty.

 

[lurch]

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:46:19 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

FYI,here's more on the Navy Spike;
http://tinyurl.com/ybn9xt9

Just a tiny bit bigger than Matt Helm's missiles

 

[UltimatePatriot]

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:56:22 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:46:19 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker
wrote in news:31upi51l18hmuhtn1mf20lv9fuhef5khc0@4ax.com:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:12:32 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker
wrote in news:l1fni5pg0rp6f64r3mbcb6apmg0to677ue@4ax.com:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:11:47 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote in
news:ch7ni5ptab13kvhcr28uo31qb03l86685d@4ax.com:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:02:05 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov
wrote:

krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in
news:t6pli5taujnq2pqp7rqh084udrbgfoomhs@4ax.com:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:05:15 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:44 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
What do you mean "get the encryption right"? I understood that
there was no encryption at all.

I just assumed that, since it is the US military, employing a
drone to do semi-stealth reconnaisance, that a basic requirement
would be that young kids who probably earn < $100/month should
not be able to intercept the stealth video. My bad.

Maybe they should leave it as it is. That way, the terrorists
could put it up on YouTube. Maybe there is a Hollywood show in
it...

Perhaps it was intentional. They can sell electronics to the
terrorists. Who knows what backdoors lurk...

"So You Think You Can Out-Run A Hell-Fire Missile."

"Smile! You're on Candid Camera!"


the US now has a very small Air-Ground Missile in development;it's
called Spike(not the Israeli Spike ATGM),and is 2 ft long,5.3 lb
total and has a 1 lb warhead,electro-optical guidance.It's
intended to take out unarmored/lightly armored vehicles or single
rooms in buildings and not cause a lot of collateral damage.
A soldier can carry three missiles and launcher,and it can also be
carried on the drones.

it's like a small model rocket.

http://defense-update.com/products/s/spike_laser.htm

That's the sort of thing I recommend to stop "hot pursuit"
situations...

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/321871

Stop on an officer's order or we make you stop ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Heck,-I- want a launch rail on MY car.

Anybody have plans for a rail gun ?

...Jim Thompson

Spike is "fire and forget",so it locks on the target's image.
Easier to aim.
but 5 grand a shot,though....
unless you can engineer a really low cost seeker.


I may build a model rocket copy of Spike,I've got an unfinished
airframe of the right size.

Heh,cops would FREAK if they saw a missile on a launch rail on top of
a car! Maybe put a red LED in the nose,people would think it's a
seeker...

GRIN

What would it cost to make a scaled-down TOW missile?

...Jim Thompson

a "model rocket" like an Estes or Aerotech,or a working guided missile?

(the TOW Anti-Tank Guided Missile[ATGM] is wire-guided,trails a pair of
wires that provide guidance to the missile.)

I know. I know. _Many_ of my hybrids circuits are in the TOW...
remember it was Hughes _Tucson_.



FYI,here's more on the Navy Spike;
http://tinyurl.com/ybn9xt9

...Jim Thompson

You must be getting old. You are not supposed to talk about shit like
that. You put yourself at risk, and by proxy, the rest of US.