Enter your email address / telephone number AGAIN to confirm
"WHY?" -- 1980s_coder
+1. I just hold CTRL and press A C I V which normally does it but it's still very annoying!
1696 posts • joined 14 Nov 2007
"WHY?" -- 1980s_coder
+1. I just hold CTRL and press A C I V which normally does it but it's still very annoying!
"The problem is 'qualified professionals' who are adamant that CLI is the only way to configure a switch, powershell is the only way to send instructions to Windows, SQL Plus is the only way to control Oracle etc etc. " -- RonWheeler
Of course you can do all those things with a GUI; automating such an approach across multiple instances is a bit of a trial though :-)
"Your heating bill is driven by the heat loss from your house. The rate of loss is set by the standards of insulation, but if you see those as set, then your heat losses are proportional to the delta between inside and outside temperature, multiplied by how long the heating is maintaining that difference." -- Ledswinger
Sorry Ledswinger, I do understand the physics, but I'm still not convinced. Say at 5℃ outside, your house, at 20℃, is 15 K hotter. You drop the thermostat to 15℃ when you are out. Eventually, your house will get to 15℃ and your heat loss rate will be two thirds of what it would have been. But, until it gets to that temperature the reduction of your heat loss is less than a third. And when the heating goes back on, it has to work harder to raise the temperature of the house.
So if your temperature drops to 15 quite quickly, your have more serious problems that your thermostatic control. And if it drops quite slowly, your house is so well insulated that you may as well keep your heating on. You probably don't want to drop your temp by much more than 5K, not just because your heating has to work harder, but because you don't really want to temperature cycle your house and its contents by much more than this on a regular basis.
So, a themostat thats 5K lower when you are out can save you money, but maybe not as much as it seems. But these things have to be even better than that - because their opportunity to save you money is only when you are out and you didn't expect to be. And the most common scenario I see quoted for this "late home from the office" is only going to be a few hours of cooling. Finally, there is only a very brief period in family life when you are all out, or all in at the same time, so unless your the kind of office worker who thinks the spouse and kids should shiver along with you when you're stuck in the data centre, I just don't think the maths adds up for most situations.
Going out on a limb here (having no central heating at all, I don't know) but does it really make much difference turning the temperature down when you're out? Surely that can only be the case if you really need to buy some insulation? Or perhaps even shut the windows.
"You could say that it's discrimination against parenthood. I would cast it the other way around, that people discriminate more about work when they are parents." -- Tim Worstall
I agree. I was never keen on working more than my contracted hours for no additional reward before having a family; when you do have a family (or even just a significant other), additional time that you give your employer, whether for free or for additional payment, doesn't 100% belong to you -- so you have to be even more careful.
... does this mean that, in some sense, there is 'discrimination' against parenthood and, if so, does anything need to be done about it? Entirely open question, just seeking opinions ...
There's a difference between "left over" rice and that which has been "left out". I'm happy to keep rice till the next day when it has been cooled, covered and refrigerated. But eating last night's takeaway rice when it's been on the counter overnight, no chance. Bacillus cereus food poisoning is very unpleasant and rice is both cheap and quick to prepare: the reward to risk ratio simply does not justify eating day-old rice for most people, even if you'd be fine 90% of the time.
@armyknife it is certainly the case that doorstep sellers in the UK have the same old collections of stuff. You even see the same weird items (car window escape hammer and seat belt cutter?, 'amazing' super scissors which can cut 2p coins [i.e. bog standard angled blade serrated steel sheers]).
My guess is that these people are at the bottom of various pyramids, or at any rate, simply selling anything they think they can sell which makes them a reasonable margin - it's just two steps up from begging (the next step is washing windscreens at traffic lights) and I think you are correct that the principle reason for the weird item choice is poverty.
I managed to snag itsnotexactlyrocket.science for free but I have to agree that the whole gamut of these additional TLDs really doesn't add very much beyond dollars to the pockets of the undeserving.
Thanks, guys; I googled 'slamming' *facepalm*
Indeed ... as a lifelong Smalltalk afficionado I find many modern programming language developments very pleasing ...
"If the goal is not reached by that date, they must perform a dare. I'm thinking everyone in the company must shave his eyebrows off." -- Bucky 2
Maybe we can let the company off for being optimistic and blowing their own trumpet. But this is an excellent idea for application to Gartner and the other f̶u̶t̶u̶r̶o̶l̶o̶g̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ analysts!
"... less unfriendly to the environment (less materials ..." -- Greg D.
Two more advantages: durability (especially useful in laptops) and power consumption (useful in laptops; probably unimportant in the desktop PC; but significant in datacentres)
... may be a dangerous thing*
The key thing, as per the Dunning-Kruger effect, is that what makes "a little knowledge" dangerous is a lack of realisation (usually, but not always exclusively, on the part of the holder) of its exiguity. If one really knows how little it is (i.e. one is aware both of a wider context and one's own relative ignorance) a small amount of knowledge can be quite useful --- not to mention being an unavoidable step on the path to greater knowledge!
Who wouldn't rather support a user with some knowledge rather than none? It's only once they think they know more than they do that you really start to have a problem. I certainly encourage all the family and friends I support to learn as much as they can about their systems before they call me (even if it's just writing down error messages rather than saying "it's broken").
* Yes, I know it's not the original quotation. I was once humiliated in a meeting when I said I had only a little knowledge of the area but I thought I might have an idea, to be rebuffed by someone saying "Well, as Francis Bacon said: 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'" --- you know the sort of guy I'm talking about. What I would like to have said is "Well, I think you mean Alexander Pope, and I think he was talking about a little learning rather than knowledge, but I think you've both made your point and proved it". What I actually managed to do was to stammer out my idea whilst blushing like a halfwit. It was wrong, but the two people whose opinion I really respected told me it was a good idea, so that was some recompense.
"A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
--- An Essay on Criticism, Alexander Pope
Expect to see a bit more focus on fibreglass cars in the motoring section ...
"Is anyone seriously looking at Arthur C. Clarkes space elevator ?" -- JimmyPage
Short answer: yes
It's not entirely Clake's idea, and actually dates in some form from late 19th Century. Kevlar, IS2R would be strong enough to build one on the moon, but not on earth -- but carbon nanotubes may eventually make it feasible.
My brother did his research and bought me a copy of that shirt. I shall wear it tomorrow. Hopefully no-one will be offended!
... since I can't remember when
Sorry if I'm boring people with the repetition, but you can get best of both worlds --- my son has an 16GB i7 ThinkPad from ebay -- cheap and hard-to-break. It has a small SSD dual booting Linux and Win7, and the content goes on a 1TB Hybrid HDD in a CD slot caddy. All that cost under £350.
For £100 he got a Village Instruments eGPU box and put a £150 desktop GPU card in it. Now he has a boring and not particularly thief-attracting box that he can take to lectures and lug round the campus, but when he gets back to the dorm he plugs in the eGPU (via PCI-Express slot) and has a very acceptable (for < £600) gaming rig.
You can actually get the eGPU output back onto the laptop screen (although it halves the frame rate --- although we're still talking Black Ops 2 on decent settings at nearly 60fps), and the box isn't too unportable to say, take on holiday. But given that gaming benefits from other not-very-portable items (full size keyboard, room to move a mouse, larger monitors) I'm really not quite sure why the eGPU scene isn't busier ...
... El Reg will be next!
"England voted and chose steady hands and smart minds over vacuous left-wing ideas."
Smart minds read articles fully and respond; vacuous idiots mistake obloquy for exposition.
"Quite disappointed to find this sort of left wing clap trap in the register - reads more like something out of the socialist worker." --AC
Quite depressing that you and your upvoters think that simply calling something "claptrap" is an effective counter-argument. It also suggests you didn't quite read the article in its entirety, or at least that you didn't quite understand it.
... massive screen wipes!
"Do British IP addresses have TZ offsets?"
Well, he's using 'IP address' as a metonym for a DHCP lease, so ...
... yes, until 25 October. Then no. Until 27 March. Then yes. ...
I think there are a few terms mixed up here. First of all they have used 'certainty' as in 'degrees of certainty' when they could have just said "computational algorithms produce results indicating the probability that a given event [e.g. rain between 12:00 and 13:00 in Hyde Park] will take place"
The second paragraph seems to mean this: "Some customers prefer to make risk-based decisions, on the basis of probabilities: e.g. these customers will benefit from being told that the probability of the aforementioned event is 56% rather than being told 'it will rain' simply because the probability that it will is better than evens"
I noticed when I visited the USA that many people seemed happy with a forecast of "there's a 30% chance of snow" whereas the standard British response to this on a TV weather forecast seems to be "well, will it or won't it?" so I think they may have a cultural issue on their hands as well.
When I was a scientist (a theoretician, my lab coat was reserved for teaching practicals and looked like I'd stepped out of a laundry detergent commercial), I was told that there were plans afoot to replace lab rats with lawyers, because:
1) There's only a finite number of rats in the world
2) Lab scientists can get attached to their rats
3) There's some things a self-respecting rat just won't do
I thought you were worrying about a stray hair in the boot there for a minute ...
There it is again ... the supercilious attitude of those stating "X isn't funny" as a fact when it is quite clear that some people find X funny. You may not find The Big Bang Theory funny, but it really isn't because you are cleverer than every single person who does; you just have a different sense of humour. (NB: I'm not saying TBBT fans are cleverer than you, either.)
As for your own attempt at humour, spotting the jokes "long before the canned laughter man hits the button. Weeks before in some cases" ... really, don't give up the day job. This sort of unoriginal, highly formulaic prose lends very little to your implied claim about having a much more sophisticated appreciation for comedy.
[Edit: and doesn't everybody know that TBBT is filmed live without canned laughter?]
"(The Big Bang Theory is not funny and nor was Friends)" ---cambsukguy
if you can sit through an episode of either without laughing at least once, I'm not sure your opinion on what is funny is going to be of much use to me. It might be a bit easier to see where you are coming from if you told us what you do find funny.
It's really not going to be that long before some consumer devices hop directly onto 3/4G data services. Securing your router is not going to help you much here.
"Such a far cry from my youth when our only forms of entertainment on a long trip was a coloring book, license plate bingo, and staring at the scenery" -- AC.
Tell me about it. One of my teens recently complained because there had been about 10 seconds of stuttering in an HD movie he was live-streaming to his tablet as we drove 200miles at around 70mph.
I took them to the NMoC at Bletchley to make them appreciate their kit (and their connectivity) a bit more; it was meant as revenge but they actually loved it.
"Real Cat often referred to as the-thing-that-keeps-crapping-all-over-my-garden-instead-of-its-owners'." --- Doctor Syntax
Not pleasant, but better than the alternative you appear to be suggesting; at least you can frighten the cats off with a water pistol ... oh, hold on, new IoT thought ... off to Kickstarter ...
"HOWEVER, poor security doesn't necessarily obfuscate who the attacker was any more than if there had been good security ... the level and quality of the security that was breached is tangential ..." --- Badger Murphy
I disagree: the higher the level of security, the more restricted the pool of potential culprits. Some attacks are so sophisticated (Stuxnet?) that they are almost certainly nation-state sponsored; on the other hand, a very poorly secured system can be successfully attacked by a much wider range of attackers, including script kiddies and people emailing executable trojans. It must therefore be true that it is harder to justify allegations that a nation-state has attacked you if your security is of a level amenable to much less highly resourced attackers, unless you have very significant evidence of the origin of the attack.
"None of them are in the slightest bit interested in any of us, they have neither the wherewithal, the time, or the money, and never will in any western democracy." -- Otto is a bear.
Somebody missed their history classes.
"Do you really think any government would leave a communications channel completely unmonitored"
Yes, I'd like to think that they don't have microphones in my house. Are you actually presenting a serious point of view? The words in your post look cogent enough but your arguments make pretty much no sense at all.
First you were arguing that people should be guilty unless they could prove their innocence (negative proof fallacy, as well as fundamentally opposed to good jurisprudence); now you're arguing that because agencies have done bad things in the past they should really be allowed to carry on doing it (fallacy of relative privation, maybe some others).
I'm expecting a zig-zag to some form of cultural relativism next ...
"you're a smart bunch, but some of us have seen the other side you don't" --AC
How fscking patronizing ... "I'm in possession of secret information that shows that I'm right and you are wrong." You really expect to persuade anyone of anything with that sack of horseshit?
"I value other peoples opinions on this ... we will always have a different opinion ... that's all from me on this."
I really fscking hope you don't do anything significant for national security. What a total dimwit you are.
"Many of us grew up in countries where terrorism was a daily threat, we lived with it, we didn't let it affect us" --- big_D
Absolutely. Not only were the IRA and the Baader-Meinhof gang a real and credible threat where I grew up as a child (JHQ Rheindahlen), but the far bigger threat was the sick, authoritarian society just over the wall that was going to roll tanks over Europe and take away all the rights we had fought so hard for. Unfortunately, we didn't see the sick authoritarian society approaching from the opposite point of the compass ...
... zinc whiskers? Or would that also be a problem with these liquid coolants?
I disike the prefix "cyber-", quite possibly for many of the same reasons you do. But it's here and it's going to stay; language evolves, quite often in ways one deprecates, but one has to accept it. And I might even agree that most people using the term "can probably be safely ignored" - but this is Bruce Schneier; so it's unlikely we can so easily consider him a member of that category.
"... you are usually free to discard the ISP provided router ..." -- AC
It's usually possible, but for a non-zero number of large ISPs, it's a breach of your contract conditions. Most likely they will just not provide you their support (not a huge loss) but they could conceivably degrade your service for the remainder of your contract without you having much recourse.
According to this page from the US Department of State, there were 16 deaths of private US citizens at the hands of terrorists, worldwide: 12 in Afghanistan, 3 in Algeria and 1 in Lebanan. NB: 0 deaths in the USA.
Now I think there were more than 16 deaths caused by children aged 5 or under in the USA that year but it's tricky to track down (wonder why?) and I'm on my coffee break so time is limited. But there were definitely more than zero (the number of Homeland deaths) --- in April 2013 alone I've found, in the time it takes to drink a latte, Brandon Holt (6), NJ; Josephine Fanning (48), TN; and Caroline Sparks (2), KY. --- I did put the hrefs in an earlier version of this message but lost it when I accidentally hit the back button. But if you Google the name and state in each case you will find the stories.
I also found this statistic on CNN: "In 2010, 13,186 people died in terrorist attacks worldwide; in that same year, in America alone, 31,672 people lost their lives in gun-related deaths, according to numbers complied by Tom Diaz – until recently, a senior analyst at the Violence Policy Center. "
"Unfortunately the bad guys are growing exponentially"
Ah, poor little frightened child. There have always been "bad guys", but they are most certainly NOT "growing exponentially". For goodness' sake, a few bods from this forum could cripple significant amounts of UK infrastructure in a week; your so-called "Bad Guys" just aren't that frightening.
Anders Brevik: Lone nutter killed 77. Virginia Tech weirdo, ditto, 32 deaths. GermanWings shithead pilot, 150 deaths.
Now, some frightening terrorists:
Boston Marathon: guys with bombs and guns in a huge crowd, managed to kill 6.
Hebdo Attackers: 4 guys in body armour, AK47s, SMGs, and a fscking rocket/grenade launcher: 12 deaths.
On a militaristic level, that is pathetic. 3 deaths each? If I didn't care about what happened to me, because I was going to "heaven" or some other childish afterlife, I could kill more people in the supermarket armed with a kitchen knife, probably even with my bare hands, let alone fscking body armour and an AK. Yet we are terrified of these people, why? In 2013 more Americans were killed by toddlers than terrorists. We are absolutely not swamped by jihadis.
Of course, you MAY be killed by a terrorist. But your irrational fears aren't getting paid for with my liberty. If you hunt all sharks to extinction, you won't get killed by a shark, but the collateral damage would be colossal. Maybe you don't care about sharks, and maybe you don't care about liberty. But if you're going after either, you'd better have a more rational argument than "oh my god i'm so frightened..."
Indeed. If your testing finds that a majority of people prefer mode X, but a significant minority prefer mode Y, you introduce a feature to switch between the two and default it to X.
"...entirely clones. I've never understood how that can work in the long term." --- Mage
Although sexual selection does seem to offer some benefits, it is absolutely not a requirement for reproduction or evolution. If you are wondering how anything can actually evolve in the absence of sexual selection, well, mutation provides much of the heritable variety in large groups of organisms.
It's been a long time since I was a geneticist, but certainly when I was, it was not entirely clear what the specific advantages of sexual reproduction were (although it was clear there must be some). I think there are some reasonably hypotheses now. The Wikipedia page seems to be of a reasonable quality (in common with much of the scientific content) if you're interested.
... just going to the tattoo parlour
"Apple's update to the Watch software had alarmed some folk, who suddenly spotted that fewer records of their heart rate were being stored on the device.
Some fanbois suggested that Apple was grappling with a bug. Not so, apparently.
Yup, it's a feature, not a bug ..."
Non-pathological vendor approach: update has new feature; is explained in update release notes; perhaps even include a settings option which can change the default, albeit defaulted to the new behaviour.
PS @Mephistro, I agree that this may be to protect privacy during "private moments" (I can't see any other reason, surely if you really want to measure your pulse 24x7 you don't want to only measure it at rest. But I'm stunned at your suggestion that revealing such moments could be "the cause of lots of divorces?" Seriously?
"All publicity is good publicity....as long as they spell the name right ... Worstall"
Apologies; I know what it feels like to have your final consonant trimmed - at least yours is silent :-)
... the thinking man's Jeremy Clarkson (and I mean that as a compliment) - he just punches you in the face with his logic.