At 10:27 AM 7/22/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: >>Gilmore et al used a bunch of old Sun Chassis for his & Kocher's >>DEScracker. You think this is somehow more than 100 watts, in a >>diplo suitcase, nowadays?
My point was, Gilmore et al were way behind what's capable. Proof of concept needn't be compact. A suitcase can handle his DesCrack, with all due respect, nowadays. >OK, so you're saying that this suitcase takes in say 10 OC-192s, demuxes all >of them down to the DS1 level (we're at 50,000 DS1s), demaps and unpacks the >ATM cells, and then reassembles all of the packets therein? Questions: Just for yucks, look up the specs on an Intel IXA processor. >1) How does this majic box store all that data? No store, just bridge. >2) I've been in dozens of COs myself, and have worked extensively with >people who have spent (collectively speaking) centuries in them. They never >saw such a magic box a you describe, and indeed would certainly know about >someone trying to install one. Or perhaps the NSA has developed a cloaking >device making the box invisible? Do you think they so naif they'd expose themselves to a poster who dares post *here* ? >2) What silicon does t use? Are you saying that the government can do a LOT >better than 0.13 microns these days? I'm saying that tech xfer on metal coated diamond is not just for fun. And years behind reality, for those with $400 toilet seat budgets. >3) If the majic box doesn't store the data, how does it get it back to HQ? >Telepathy? One more time: dark fiber and compact drivers. Or even your more subtle unused-bandwith usage, "back atcha". >As for trolling, well when I do it I do it with friggin' style m'friend. True 'nuff. I mean no harm, only to provoke some to think, is all. Clearly you are the uber-Sonet-troll. :-)
