238 posts • joined 5 Nov 2008
Re: "Up To 60%"
Timestamped Mobile phone IP's are very revealing if you're in law enforcement ;)
The biggest problem I had with switching to wpf was that in order to use databinding properly requires a massive shift in the way that you think about problems. I gave myself many many headaches while learning in order to Grok it. I'd imagine that you'd have the same sort of headaches learning functional programming if you're used to procedural. (never tried functional)
The main piece of advice I can give about WPF is that the UI designer is really there for modifing properties that are a pain in the arse to type in manually. Everything else should be done in the xaml text editor (with the visual bit still showing).
Also lean about mc:ignorable and d:datacontext as they will make your life so much easier.
Re: I've given up writing applications for Windows full stop.
Have a look at the new Visual Studio community edition - it's free and is identical to the professional edition if you're a lone developer. (no msdn subscription included)
Also the problem that you're having with your installers is probably that they're not signed with a certificate from a known authority.
I migrated to wpf about 4 years ago now, and once I got over the learning curve of how wpf windows fit together and learnt how to work with wpf rather than trying to shoehorn wpf into winforms (Things like using hierarchical data templates and providing a pre-built tree rather than trying to walk the visual stack to find out what's selected). Over the last year we've been learning MVVM, and now the value of WPF really shines. As by divorcing the screen from the code means that we can implement customisable screens (load xaml from a file or database on startup) without it breaking the window. What we've also found is that the extra time spent setting up an MVVM application pays itself back in spades later during maintenance.
Right and Wrong, and why I think you are
I think that you are both right and wrong at the same time, but that's because there are two different things that need to be taken into account. One is that someone that partakes of risky behaviour is more likely to die off sooner, and thus in the long haul, cost the NHS less - This is where you're right. Where you're wrong however is in making the implied assumption that front loaded costs that are smaller overall is better than a more even spread of costs overall but cost more over a longer period of time.
If I offered you a loan and the pay back on the loan was either £200/month over 10 years or £100/month over 25 years which one would be cheaper? If you were looking at your monthly bills you might say the £100/month even though it will cost you £6000 more however you're saving £100/month. If you could afford the £200/month you'd probably say that that was the cheaper option as you'd be saving £6000 over all.
Re: More hmm...
with a TV crew camped on your doorstep
So you want to dissolve Google then?
Re: a couple of misconceptions
Yes there is, as if the carbon tax does everything it's supposed to do there will be no tax income from that particular tax. Then who pays for the rubbish collection, or the health service?
Re: How to set the tax?
But how do you account for things like smelting, power production, red diesel, etc. Where they all directly produce carbon emissions if they use fossil fuels, but not if they don't. However the price the end consumer pays doesn't directly have any bearing on whether the source company used fossil fuels or not.
Re: How to set the tax?
Wouldn't we need to be applying that tax at source rather than at the pump for it to really work? As, as things stand I believe that there are different tax rates on your carbon emissions depending on who you are. So at the refinery or as in import tax on coal/gas?
From my understanding of historical temperature records, the problems have been that when they were made we didn't understand that things like urban heat islands even existed let along the ramifications it would have on temperature records. They also weren't as rigorous about how the readings were taken, so the time of day, and whether it was in shade wasn't necessarily followed as precisely as needed.
Based on that once we did find out about those things we needed to go back and make adjustments to the old temperature records based on where the temperature was taken from at the time. This being a judgement call by the interpreter means that individual historical models could be very different. Thus the NASA adjustments.
I don't believe that this is supposed to be a predictive model, rather it's supposed to tell us how stuff moves from a to b. When we understand that we can then start to discover other things that are useful such as where's the best place to plant forests to absorb CO2, where's most of the CO2 coming from, what paths does it take, how does it correlate to weather conditions.
Understanding the why of the past is often key to being able to affect the future in the way you want.
Re: Additional explanation?
So far as I know the only non genital/giving birth related thing that's different between men and women and can be proven to be down to sex is the relative strength at the upper end of the spectrum (i.e. men tend to be stronger and can be much stronger than women). everything else could be social/cultural - i.e. nurture
Re: Additional explanation?
I suspect that a lot of the hunter gatherer differences are down to the fact that men get more practice at the spacial awareness stuff because they're more expendable to the tribe (how many men does it take to re-populate the tribe in one generation vs how many women) thus are freer/compelled to take on the more dangerous tasks of ranging and locating new resources. While the women get to learn the area that they live in more, and are thus better at gathering the resources than the men.
Re: So how secure are 'biometrics'?
Why does everyone automatically jump to fingerprints as soon as anyone mentions biometrics. Of the entire set of things that you could use on the human body (non-invasively) for biometric checks, the fingerprint is just a fairly small subset.
The most recent one that I've seen going into general use eschews fingerprints for scanning the pattern of the blood vessels in your finger.
Re: argh -- have to go anon for this one.
What we did in the UK is forced BT (the incumbent operator) to logically separate it's operations into 2 or more internal companies - BT Wholesale and BT Retail are the one's we're concerned with here. The next thing they did was they said that BT Wholesale is not allowed to sell access to the cables for more than it's charging BT Retail. It's also not allowed to sell access to the wires directly. Lastly, any ISP can buy access from BT Wholesale, and also put equipment in the exchanges.
This means that the natural monopoly of the infrastructure to individual houses is owned and managed by a company that has a vested interest in maintaining the service and providing a fault free experience. While the back haul from the exchange is now open to competition.
For things like gas, water, and sewage I disagree as it's not so much an issue of want as it is practicality (Sewage and water esp. can use very large pipes) and scarcity of space. I would imagine that there are plenty of large houses that have more than 1 of a type of pipe going into the property, but they all come from the same mains pipe.
Re: But American utilities such as water and electricity are privatised monopolies
Erm, how would a second set of gas, even work in a house as you can't exactly switch the supply of gas to appliances? Same with water and sewage. They're on a grid system because of the practicalities rather than desires, as to have 2 pipes of anything coming into the house would mean duplicating everything that used that resource.
Electricity already has this available in the way of multiphase wiring, so you can actually have multiple electricity supplies, but the electricity company only generally lets you do this if you need more voltage than the standard 1 phase input allows.
I believe that a natural monopoly does exist, but only in relation to the wires in the road. Basically it doesn't make sense to put down more than one set of gas pipes, electricity cables, water pipes, sewage pipes, telephone cables, roads, train tracks, etc. Thus these are all natural monopolies. But beyond the management of the last mile infrastructure, I don't believe there are natural monopolies and the government should recognise that by forcing a separation in law.
Re: @Tim Worstall - it's so unlike Tim Worstall to get the wrong end of the issue, isn't it?
From everything that I've seen about the tories trying to cut spending to below income is that the government is now in the same position millions of people in the UK are where their loans are taking up so much of their income that they've already stopped spending on anything they consider luxuries and are now having to cut into essentials which means that the amount they can cut is very limited.
Re: Space isn't orbit
Don't forget that the hard part of space travel is actually getting into orbit. If we can perfect that then we can then work on getting the rest of the journey working better. It could also lead to developments of orbital production platforms (orbital drydocks for example)
Re: It's not inequality, it's poverty
The problem is that in most 1st world countries poverty isn't really poverty. What it is is income disparity and the effects that that has on your ability to get by. So in a very real sense the problem is that the people that are driving the prices up in the local area are earning so much more than the people that support the infrastructure in that area that they (the have-nots) are inching closer and closer to relying on the welfare state and having to move away to a more affordable area but still somehow keep their job. However the story being about the USA means that there isn't a welfare state to fall back on, and thus they will end up in real hardship while still earning more than those that are actually on or below the poverty line.
@cray74 - One other thing to consider is that the rocket is essentially disposable as everyone make a new one for the next launch. IIRC the only exceptions have been the shuttle, the xr-32 (or whatever it is) space plane, and the shuttles fuel tank. Every other rocket is built for that particular launch. If you operated planes in the same way I virtually guarantee that there would be a similar level of testing involved.
Space X with their grasshopper technology may be the first since the shuttle to have a reusable rocket. At which point the feasibility of rigorous testing of the actual completed rocket comes into the realms of we can do this.
Re: So why bother to send a letter of request to a foreign country...
I figure that what they should do is get a warrant for hacking the server, and once they locate the server either the server is in the USA at which point the warrant still stands, the server is in a country they have a treaty with at which point they did their good faith bit by getting the warrant in the first place and now they can in good faith get assistance from the Icelandic government. Finally if it's in a country with no treaty they can ask a diplomat for advice and, because they've already got a warrant whatever course of action is advised will have started in good faith.
Re: never forget though
Marketing, otherwise known as highlighting all the positives while minimising the negatives.
Re: Clean energy NOW
If they weren't caring about that possibility and making sure that it couldn't happen then there's nothing to stop them using the same material they use in bombs in pure enough concentrations that if there was a failure in the system they could form a critical mass.
Hence I was saying that the reason nuclear is expensive is specifically to avoid those sorts of situations and to make it the safest form of electricity generation currently available.
In short, if you ignored all of the safeguards that we have in place for nuclear and used the wrong radio active material, you could indeed get an explosion. Which as I said not so directly in my previous post, would be stupid.
Re: Clean energy NOW
Nuclear isn't expensive because of excessive bureaucracy - although that's part of the reason. It's expensive because of all the failsafes that need to be built into the station, and the fact that you need to employ highly qualified people for all of the important jobs in the station. The actual fuel is pretty cheap/GW compared to other fuels.
Why do we need all the failsafes? Because if something goes catastrophically wrong at a coal plant you get devastation within about a mile of the station at worst. If the same happens at a nuclear plant it could be because some fissile material has achieved critical mass and is the right type to actually cause an explosion, at which point you could be looking at devastation within 5-10 miles and problems outside that area.
The result of all this is that Nuclear power is the safest source of power/GW in the world.
Re: Well we'd need a more refined bill of rights
>> Of course if they started DRMing food/essentials you might have a leg to stand on.
>I think Monsanto would disagree with you on that.
I don't believe they are DRMing their products, and if they did I'm pretty sure that various governments would have strong words with them. But growing GM food is a different topic to purchasing the end product, and should probably take place in a different setting. Suffice to say that my issue with GM food is when they start making it so that you can't grow from G2 seed, rather than you're not allowed to grow from G2 seed.
Re: Well we'd need a more refined bill of rights
The choice you have is whether to buy or not buy the movie legally. It's not as if these things are essential for your survival.
Of course if they started DRMing food/essentials you might have a leg to stand on. But as it stands they are only DRMing luxuries. And while they're only DRMing luxuries you have the option of not having said luxury.
Additionally I'm pretty sure that you could approach a studio and ask them for a DRM free copy of the film that you want. Though you can expect to be laughed at if you're not rich enough or from the right industry. But if you're rich enough I'm sure they'd sell you one for a few hundred thousand pounds.
Well it could mean that they fared worse, or it could mean he's only ever torture tested one thing...
Re: But is a fluid definition a bad thing?
Incorrect, he's actually written an article saying that absolute poverty IN THE UK is indeed gone. He said nothing about the rest of the world. So no where is he saying that it's now time to address relative poverty. I take that to mean that he's saying that when world wide absolute poverty is gone, we can look to address relative poverty.
As a point, why wouldn't they just cut the cable and then during the few days that the company is scrambling to deal with the outage install their gear at the friendly end of the cable? It would give them plenty of time to do this sort of thing and make it much easier to change later.
Re: Creation and Duplication
Given that, as a private individual, you can buy a ream of really good quality paper for less than £10, and you can also get companies to deliver 100's lbs of goods in the same country for around a score. Do you really think that the dead tree edition of the books that you've got were the main sink for the money you spent on them?
No, the main money sinks were in the time that people took before the book on your shelf existed to create the master copy that your book is a copy of. If you tot up the cost of everyone's time and expenses from the time the author puts pen to paper, to the moment the printing plates have been produced and production is ready to begin you'll probably find that that's a pretty large chunk of cash. Add a small percentage on in case another book doesn't do so well and you're approaching the true cost for the publisher.
Someone else has done the work to analyse these figures here http://ireaderreview.com/2009/05/03/book-cost-analysis-cost-of-physical-book-publishing/
Looking at those figures, you're only going to save around 50% of the price of a dead tree edition book, most of which is the retailers costs rather than the publishers costs. Which when I look at amazon for books that have been out for a while seems to be where their prices end up.
Re: "Refine the fuel from ice".
You can brute force fuel by electrolysis using just solar electricity. If you take up a nuclear power source you can do it faster. If you have some carbon around you can then turn the hydrogen into a safer and more portable fuel using electricity and a catalyst.
It doesn't matter if it's slow as long as it's not too slow.
As a side thought though, once you've got your momentum going wouldn't you be using ion engines to move through the solar system anyway? At which point you need fairly small amounts of actual fuel, and would be using the hydrogen/oxygen for escaping gravity wells that are stronger than your ion engines only.
Re: There are so many problems.
In theory the problem is one of getting to the asteroid belts to mine in the first place as having the fuel to return to earth shouldn't be a problem as soon as you find a few Ice bearing asteroids. Of course you need to work out how to refine the fuel from the water in the first place, but that's something that can be perfected fairly close to earth.
What's the betting that the first structure built outside earths gravitational field is a fuel depot/station with massive solar panels for the refining.
Re: It will only get worse...
How do you know it hasn't
Re: oh but that's just the start...
The problem with international treaties is that if you want their end to be upheld you have to uphold your end. As this is a European arrest warrant, the UK is obliged by treaty to arrest Assangne if he's on their land. There are penalties if they don't.
So it's not the crime that's at stake, it's the arrest warrant and treaty surrounding it.
Re: Missing the point
Because if you censor the source then it becomes impossible to trust that there is a fair, unbiased and not state controlled press. If the source is allowed to stay, but the means of finding said source becomes more and more burdensome as time goes on. Then it protects peoples privacy in a general sense as the article isn't showing up as fresh all the time while preserving it for the future when a relative or researcher may come across it while searching in the archives.
Also, the article itself isn't damaging sitting there in the archive. It's only damaging to the persons current reputation because it has been processed by a search engine and brought into the lime light during a search.
because the published content falls under a different set of laws that applies to publishers rather than data processors.
In this instance google falls under the dataprocessing aspect of the dataprotection act. That means that they have a duty to ensure that the data that they hold and process is accurate and up to date. (This is existing law rather than the new right to be forgotten). News papers, blogs, et al, don't need to abide by this as they aren't processing data they are producing information. Thus the article that's sitting in their archive is the same one as it was when it was published.
The reason for the difference is (I think) to avoid post publication censorship by those in power.
And once it's finished it can be signed with the check sum in a public location so it's easy to verify.
BillG - But what's their profit margin on that? I'm willing to bet that it's less than 10% which is what they could be fined.
So now all we need to do is set up a token ring network around the sun...
As someone above mentioned, this could just be a case of different teams, unknown dependancies on the old functions that mean the new functions can't just be slotted in, or any number of other reasons than those that boil down to "can't be arsed"
Re: Is that a portable access point in your pocket, are you ...
I think the problem with google glass vs using a camera/phone to take photos is that there's no easy way to tell if a glass wearer is taking photos or not, while a camera/phone user needs to go to some lengths to make it not easy to tell that they are doing so.
Re: My network...
@AC - OK, so Imagine that I'm a small "mom & pop" cafe that provides internet access to increase the amount of time that people stay in the cafe, and thus buy more drinks...
Whoops there goes a commercial concern that may have the know how and kit to do one thing but not the other.
Why do you think that, in the UK at least, the major teleco's are providing the blocking software on their end rather than the consumer end?
Re: My network...
Incorrect as the law recognises that you can only take "reasonable" steps to protect your network. It's the same as trying to protect your house. The law doesn't say that because you installed a lock it's your fault for not turning your house into an impenetrable bunker when it gets broken into.
Equally the law doesn't say that it's your fault if someone steals something of your if you told other people to leave.
The same's true in the IT arena. If you block port 25, that doesn't imply that you can block vpn connection 1..300,000 or that you can block traffic from www.kiddyfiddliersare.us without also blocking www.google.com - Infact I'd go so far as to say that there's a fairly high chance that you don't have access to the full black list of sites for kiddie porn. If you're saying, why don't you put a proxy in the way and use content filtering - Proxies don't deal with https very well (at all?).
If someone download kiddie porn over your network in the clear and the police trace it to your network. You'll be in for an arse of a time without your computers for the next 6 months while they go through them looking for any illegal content. But assuming that it wasn't you doing the downloading, then you'll get them back again eventually.
edit to add : Additionally having an auto deny process that monitors who's attached to the network and kicks of those that you've black listed every 30 seconds is very different to putting a proxy server on your connection and firewalling content/ports from those inside the network. They have a very different level of skill set needed to start with. Again it's similar to the difference between being able to fit a new lock to your house compared with being able to fit emergency shutters that are activated when an unauthorised person tries to enter the house.
Re: My network...
@photobod - As the OP is blocking devices, wouldn't that mean that he is responsible for blocking other devices once he finds out they are performing illegal actions rather than blocking content that you and the poster above were implying.
I say this as by blocking a device you're not implying that you can stop devices from downloading illegal content as you've done nothing with the content.
So Basically, the chinese government has been keeping an eye on the snowden leaks, matching it with their own data and been drawing inferences that mean they think that their data is insecure. What's the chances that it's down to not being able to block traffic to a microsoft server otherwise windows 8 stops working (or won't activate) and needing to block traffic to the same server to prevent data leaking.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Analysis Pity the poor Windows developer: The tools for desktop development are in disarray
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'
- Analysis BlackBerry's turnaround relies on a secret weapon: Its own network
- Hire and hold IT staff in 2015: The Reg's how-to guide