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" <khe...@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" <mysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 6/14/13, Scott Helms <khe...@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 >>
