Driver to drive?

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:50:36 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

In comp.dsp Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)

Videocipher-I was digital video & audio. Videocipher-II was analog.

And then there was the system that adds a sine wave to the
video signal such that the sync is not the lowest level anymore,
and wonders around enough that you won't try watch it.



That was 'On TV' or the 'Hamlin' scrambling system on Cable TV. That
was '70s technology.

It was called "In band gated sync scrambling".
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:46:31 -0800 (PST), David Schwartz
<davids@webmaster.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 10:54 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Apparently, the link from Satellite to Predator is digital and follows
a standard format for such links, which the SkyGrabber software is
familiar with:

Where did you find something that says that the video link to the
Predator is the one that's being grabbed?

In any case, the link from drone to satellite is digital, and link
from satellite to ground station is almost certainly digital, as it
would make no sense at all to decode a digital bit stream arriving
from the drone into the satellite, decode that bitstream, convert it
to analog, then send it back to earth in some analog format, which
would be hopelessly inefficient in so many ways.

It is my understanding that it was the link to the ground station that
was digital and being intercepted, not the link from the Predator. If
you can point to some reliable source that says otherwise, let me
know. I'll be mightily surprised.

DS

I doubt seriously that anyone "down here" with any antenna, could grab
a signal from a microwave link that is pointed *away* from terra firma.

Si, I agree with you. It had to be the downlink that got grabbed.

I think it may even have been a captured rebroadcast of a playback of a
drone tape. So I have doubts that they actually grabbed one of our
streams at all. They are too goddamned dumb.

They cannot even control themselves when they are around women that
have more than their eyes available for viewing.

They should all die in a lake of pig's blood. In fact, they should be
chased into said lake by a swine stampede.

Oh, the horror!
 
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.

I want a rail-gun on mine.
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:31:52 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:

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

If you do not know something so utterly basic as a rail gun, you should
move on to a different industry.
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:51:52 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

I would bet you a
nickel that when the systems were being developed, the contractors said,
"sure, we can add encryption, but it will add years and millions to the
development schedule," and someone made the Executive Decision to skip it.

No, it would not. It would add ONE component to the drone. The ground
station already has the gear to decrypt it.
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:51:52 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

This is a major problem with many military and commercial contracts today:
Often the people with the high-dollar decision-making authority don't have the
technical background to know if someone pitching them a huge schedule and cost
increase are doing so because what's being asked for really is a Hard Problem
or just because the contractor doesn't happen to be very good in that area.

---Joel

The current environment is a very different place.

Contractors are premier performers and they buyers (the guys in charge)
ARE smart enough to know exactly what they want.

Networks have come a long way in the last 15 years. When a rack can
cost over a million bucks, you can bet it only has in it what it needs.

The new Agile network analyzers are fucking so cool!

Wont be long, and we'll be making exact counts of electron streams and
such.
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:00:42 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
<jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

I think DARPA simply got lazy and punted on this one.
I think you're a friggin' retard.
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:12:27 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
<zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks a good discussion, Le Chaud, but I have a somewhat less pessimistic
view on it all. It's not "all" driven by self-preseveration or ego -

Every viewpoint the retarded little bastard spewed was lame, so your
capacity to discern an intelligent dialog lacks a bit.
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:25:54 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>
wrote:

That is, "mil spec"
processors and what not are not at the forefront of the performance
curve.
You ain't real bright.

We call "broadband" fast when we can grab around 1 MB per second from
kernel.org on our 15Mb/s hooks. That's just ONE hook.

The mil boys do 100MB/second streams, idiot. AND they do MANY channels
at that rate. Do you think they "hurry up and wait" and process all that
data slowly once it arrives?

Your capacity to know what is going on in the real world is lacking.

They are most certainly RIGHT at "the forefront of BOTH the technology
AND the performance curve.

So stop shitting yourself. You are stinking up the place.

Is your workplace outfitted with SAS hard drives yet? That is cutting
edge, and guess who DOES use it. Oh well... I guess that you just are
not keeping up with the big boys.

You are too stupid to be a mushroom, but you are sure completely in the
dark like one.
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:00:19 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
<jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

The program manager who was in charge of this soliciation mysteriously
disengaged not long after it was published.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
The real question is: "Do you even know what IS in current use?"

I have serious doubts that you do. Hardware level IP encryptors have
been around AND in use for years, boy.
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:50:36 -0600, casual observer <cobs@cobs.invalid>
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:48:25 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

The need to guard against cyberattacks on power stations and military
installations is a clear indication of bad -- make that stupid --
design. Critical facilities shouldn't share wire networks with
internet-at-large, and there would ideally be no radio links. Those who
don't like other people reading over their shoulders shouldn't build
glass houses.

Agreed. Get rid of the wireless links on the Predator drones and use
wired connections. Wait....huh? ;-)
NONE of the Predator's signals UP to the bird were intercepted.

The sat signal DOWN to the ground control station was.
 
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.


--
Offworld checks no longer accepted!
 
On Dec 18, 5:39 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

The uplink from the Predator is analog. The downlink from the
satellite is digital. There is no accessible point between the two to
put the encryption device.

Where on the Internet/etc. does it say that?
In the post you're replying to.

DS
 
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
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Help save the environment!
Please dispose of socialism properly!
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:05:44 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

Recently I read

The validity of the text comes into question.

The 787 will have a live link to a satellite for its Internet hooks. It
sits under a small dome, and the "modem" is a transit case that is about
7 cubic feet of gear.

I doubt very seriously that the hard wired flight control circuits are
on ANY network, much less this one.
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:19:20 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
<jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

Let me put it another way. If anyone, anywhere, offers me and three
other people of my choosing, $100 million, or even $1 million, to "get
it right", there will be no excuses. Not one.

You're an idiot, and you would never deserve ANY money.

You are not smart enough to warrant NRE, and YOU would never win any
such contract.

The way you are in this thread bad-mouthing everyone and his brother
that may or may not have been involved with this, I'd say that you do not
really know how it gets done at all.
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:19:20 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
<jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

What they did was inexcusable.
What YOU are doing is inexcusable, particularly since you DO NOT know
what actually happened, much less ANY of the particulars of what actually
happened.

You are a guess as you go asshole, at best.
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:19:20 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
<jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

and as of 2009, it's still a mess:
No. The facts are that JTRS HAS had HUGE "chunks" of requirements and
technological needs ADDED to it, so ANY of the original cost estimates
are going to be way off, of course. Also, nearly all of the original
observations on its feasibility, etc. are askew as well.

The program is doing fine, and will succeed.
 
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:19:20 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
<jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

This is comical. You go off and waste $11 billion, then gouge $3 more
billion, and you write something like this, and people are supposed to
believe you? ??????
You keep missing the FACT that huge requirements were ADDED, idiot.
 
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.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top