At 03:52 PM 7/27/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: >Variola wrote... >>In the *public* lit. > >Well, perhaps but perhaps not. Burst-mode signaling, transceivers, and >networking technology are a good example. If you see DISA, NSA, and DARPA >all working with the acknoledged experts inthe academic field, and if you >see them spending $$$ on burst-mode testbeds, then it's clear that there are >some issues they haven't solved.
You're right on this, I admit. Its clear that things like smart dust and gait recognition and autonomous cruising across the desert are not things the Beast has yet. >There just happen to be >physical limitations. But I have zero doubt that the NSA can't make a laser >that is siginificantly more efficient than what I can buy off the shelf. I'm not one to dispute physics. However most professional skeptics (eg cryptographers) grant the adversary anything from 2 to 10 x the COTS tech. Do you *really* think the NSA's DesCrack was built with old Sun chassis like Gilmore, Kocher, et als??? Remember that the spookfabs don't have to contend with *economics and yield*. They can use *radioisotopes*. Subs can lay independant cable. Not a lot of folks walk along the undersea cables, to say nothing of how bribable telecom folks are. Conservativism sometimes means being liberal in modelling others' capabilities. ------ Be Useful -the Baron
