Re: downvoted (who are you calling a cult?)
> Pointing out ... hardly makes me a fanboy.
Errrrm, I though I was agreeing with you. it's the people who can't stand any criticism that amuse me.
2442 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
> Pointing out ... hardly makes me a fanboy.
Errrrm, I though I was agreeing with you. it's the people who can't stand any criticism that amuse me.
> I can't work out why 'It'sa Mea... Mario' has been downvoted. His comment was purely factual, save for his 'hoorah'. Really.
ISTM the Pi has gained "iPhone" status - there is a (small but vocal) collection of
fanb admirers who will not hear a bad word against it. Whether there's a correlation between its fans and those who have actually touched one, is something I'd be interested in knowing.
> without any significant government help. ... Some people think that ought to change
Possibly the worst thing that could happen to the UK space industry (and by that I don't mean satellite TV) is government involvement. If they want to help, they can promote space science in education, make permits, planning and finance easier to obtain but otherwise STAY OUT OF THE WAY.
The UK has an unhappy history with space exploration - which was all government sponsored and fell prey to the whims of bean-counters far from the action. If there's to be any continued success or growth of the UK industry, it should learn from the lessons of the 60's and keep government interference at arms length.
Even NASA's three-legged "fighting machines" are as described in the book - though they're smaller than I imagined
It's the Mark 1. We know (some through experience and some by learning from the mistakes of others) all about "Mark 1"'s.
Although I doubt if they planned it like this, but the RPi people seem to have got the hacker community to do the beta-testing for them. Discovering the real-world problems is always a necessary task and one that's usually devolved to the early adopters who, through the powers of marketing, seem to be happy to spend their money on unproven stuff in return for the bragging rights of "I was in at the beginning".
[Disclaimer: sometime between now and (hopefully) christmas (hopefully 2012) I'll get to the top of the list and be invited into the RPi store, too.]
What should be happening now is that the professional designers will be looking at all the criticisms and feedback. They'll be tearing apart the initial designs and looking for improvements. With some luck, the current run of Mark 1's will be superceded by faster, cooler (in all senses), more reliable boards using up-to-date chips with more memory, peripherals and a better layout (you really don't want I-O on all sides of the board) that may cost more but be generally better suited to mass-use.
Depending on when that happens, I may grab a Mk 1 when the time comes - or I may get the opportunity to buy a Mk2 when the current design gets obsoleted.
We reckon that the cost of a production server taking an unexpected dive averages about £5,600. It might be a made-up figure, but it's one that drives a fair number of budgetary decisions around here.
Yesterday there were no server crashes ... kerrr-ching! Look at that, we've "saved" the company over £300 grand (52 prod. servers) in a single day. Surely for that massive saving, the IT department deserves a rise? In fact, there haven't been any unscheduled outages for a couple of weeks now, which puts the IT "savings" at something greater than our departmental budget.
Given how many (ahem) crashes I personally didn't cause last year I can boast a saving to the company of several million. Surely that means HR should employ more IT staff - none of whom cause any crashes, thus saving even more? Strangely, they're not buying it.
However, I'm sure that with their accounting methods the BSA has IT staff coming out of their ears. Even if they count the cost of an outage at much, much less than we do, they will still be in the money by employing more and more people who don't kill their computers.
... must come down.
Sooner or later someone's going to ask the embarrassing question: what's their intrinsic value? That can only be quantified by the amount of living, typing product they have available - the number of actual people who use the site regularly. Unlike Google, which doesn't have "users" in the conventional sense: people who have created an account and visit the site frequently, FB is dependent on the number of people who actively partake of the site and receive their advertisements. It doesn't take much (ref: every other social website that's floated) to realise that users are a fickle bunch. Just because a site is popular, now, with todays generation of teenage web users, that doesn't mean that todays 8 year-olds will necessarily want to use such an "old" technology in 5 or 6 years time. If that does come to pass, then the shelf-life of FB and its stock value could be about as perishable as a piece of fish.
leaves on the server?
With General de Gaulle on accordion
> ... who goes on training courses on subjects or skills he is fully conversant in
Actually, I think you'll find he's the guy who is sent on those courses by colleagues (who willingly transfer their training credits to him) just so they can get him out of the office for a while.
Sorry, but unless the volume is expressed in olympic swimming pools I have no idea how much (or little) that is.
If they need a source of cheap programme content (and they will, 'cos they won't be in a position to make any themselves - not on their budgets) there's already a thick vein of unspeakable dross ready and waiting. I can see that in the few minutes per hour that is NOT advertising, the lone employee will be tasked with doing searches for "Oxford" or "Southampton" on YT and then plugging whatever comes out into the TV transmitter.
> OpTIIX is exciting because if the "adaptive optics" experiment is successful, it'll pave the way for much larger, free-flying telescopes in the future
Uhhh, don't almost all ground-based professional telescope already use AO? Haven't they developed it for many years in order to reduce the effect of atmospheric turbulence on their cameras. Why would you need to put this as an "experiment" on a space-based telescope that was above the atmosphere, if you only want to look at stars through it?
However, if you wanted a space-based telescope that was looking downwards through the atmosphere, to spy on people then I can see the benefit - and where the funding would come from.
Now, I appreciate that vibration from all the machinery inside the ISS makes it a no-no for anything that needs precision pointing, but the simple solution to that is (as has been done since the beginning of the space era) is to NOT put your telescopes on a platform that wobbles it's way around the planet. Hubble, JWT and all the other observation satellites managed this decades ago, so it's mystifying why we suddenly need a telescope on what is probably the least suitable orbital location.
I can see that some of the other attributes of this experiment: kit telescopes, are useful. But AO on an extra-atmospheric 'scope? What's it really meant for?
People want the shares simply because there's a demand. The plan being to buy what you can then sell quick (stagging) for a profit. Since FB is such a massive company, those traders who need a "balanced portfolio" will be forced to hold some FB stock, just to maintain the balance - irrespective of how many veiled profit warnings FB announced this morning.
Now, the problem is that if there are more announcements (FB said they don't make as much from mobile users - and their proportion is growing) or if the markets decide that FB isn't the golden child they thought it was a year or two back, then all the fizz goes out of the proposition and those left holding shares at the IPO price would have to take a loss if they sold them.
Personally, I don't give a rat's arse either way. They say that the only way to make a million quid on the stock market is to start with 2 million. And given the way it's going these days, it's no longer the sure thing it was in the 80s (when you literally couldn't get hold of a broker on floatation day ... grrrrr).
As it is, the history of internet stocks shows that they all go through an initial boom, followed by a decline into nothingness. The only question is was FB's boom last year, before they floated?.
> who we are supposed to be fighting with these carriers and planes?
Ans: nobody. They're like nuclear weapons (i.e. terribly expensive, bought from the americans as we can't make our own and never intended to be used). The point about having an offensive capability is status, not security. There's no possibility that these weapons of war will ever be used to repel an invader. However the threat that we could bring them to bear against some other poor schmuk in a faraway country affords us a place at the table, in the Security Council. The fact that we don't, demonstrates our restraint and maturity (or possibly the secret, kept, that they don't actually work).
These weapons allow the politicians to swagger about, pretending to be statesmen (or women) and to show magnanimity by deploying them to help "friendly" (i.e. oil-rich) countries/peoples with the implied debt to be paid by them selling their resources to us, instead of to other countries that can't bomb the crap out of people they don't like.
In political terms, they help preserve our influence in the world. In footballing terms: attack is the best form of defence. In the animal kingdom, so long as you look big and threatening others will leave you alone. Sadly we've got ourselves into the situation where none of these aphorisms work for us any more - or we've been sussed. Even more sadly, the defence companies keep persuading the politicians that they still hold true.
The key to understanding this decision (or any government decision, come to that) is that by the time this carrier comes into service and it's shiny new aircraft arrive - either horizontally or vertically - there will have been an election. No government has the ability or will to look further ahead than the next ballot, as they'll either be out of power or have new and more interesting problems to
screw up solve. By that time, or even further ahead when/if an enemy emerges that needs the might of an aircraft carrier's planes to defeat it, nobody will remember who decided what (and those who did decide will all be on the boards of various defence companies, anyway) and how to bring them to book.
I expect this decision was not driven by strategic thinking, but by expediency: JFDI or CYA or both. As it is, the chances of a government official being able to outwit a company that's dedicated its existence to squeezing as much money as possible out of it is slight. Even if such a brainiac politician was in the right place at the right time, the defence suppliers only have to wait until the next election for that person to be reshuffled and replaced by someone more "amenable".
> Venus in rare Sun crossing next month
Clouds in common Sun crossing next month, next week, tomorrow and most of the rest of the "summer"
Though if you do fancy a shot, £20 for an A4 sheet of Baader film for your telescope is fine. Comz1 is correct - just make sure you buy the ND5 film, not the "weaker" one meant for astrophotograhy.
> previous "stealth wallpapers" developed for the defence sector cost roughly £500 per square metre, the researchers reckon rolls of this new decor will be reasonably priced,
It's probably exactly the same stuff, made in the same way by the same people. The only difference is this is closer to the true price, without the added "overheads" of dealing with a government department that has an infinite supply of money at its disposal that it's determined to (over)spend.
> "It’s not entirely clear to me why the Beagleboard is so expensive ... "
We are told the Pi took 6 years to develop. I'm guessing that during the time the developers had proper jobs and regarded the Pi as a sort of altruistic hobby. It definitely wasn't going to be a source of income during those years.
Consequently all the time and resources used for the development process are a sunk cost and don't have to be recouped from the unit-price of the eventual product. That's what makes the Pi different from commercial offerings. In these cases the years (or more likely: months, for time is money) of developer time has to be paid for - in salaries, equipment and facilities.
We also know that given a large enough production run (say for a mobile phone) these costs don't add a great deal to each board when you're producing a million of them. Even less if all you have to do is add new features/power to an existing design. However for a low-sales, niche market that only produces one-hundreth the number of units, those same costs will contribute 100 times as much to the price of each board made.
Maybe the longest lasting legacy of the Pi won't be introducing children to little motherboards, but will be the creation of a low-cost, open sourced basis for future embedded hardware.
> a definite 200-year-long cool period which corresponds with the onset of the "Homeric Minimum"
Maybe we'd better all stop writing ancient greek prose, just in case.
> "The government agreed with our assessment that the central system for assuring major projects was not optimal," the NAO says, and the government has since set up the Major Projects Authority (MPA)
Add more committees and paperwork. It's a poor substitute for talented project leaders, but it's the only substitute we have.
> Some broadcaster suits will take [40% of people being online while watching TV] as a call to make TV more interactive, while others will see the need to make shows more engaging so people put the damn
notebook tablet phone down, and watch.
It could go the other way. That TV producers will assume that if people aren't actually watching, they can reduce the "quality" of the programming. I suppose the direction it will take will be determined by whichever option lets them make the most hours of
filler content for the least amount of money.
> thames charge 117p per tonne plus 580p for disposal
Holy crap! (actually, that might explain it) Thames charge us the same 117p / m³ to deliver but only 59p/m³ to take it away again. Odd that they're charging you 10 times as much.
p.s. to AC 15:22: awwwwww! did someone not get their hug today?
> ... and the creeping rationing of water meters continued to spread
Personally I was very pleased to see the advent of "rationing" when the installation of a water meter at our house dropped the annual bill from a flat-rate £440 to a pay-for-what-you-use cost of £160 p.a. Though it's worth noting that this is still significantly higher; both in standing charge and in cost per m³, than water bills in "dry" areas such as the desert regions of Spain.
As for the rest of the article, TL;DR
Question 5: In comparison with steel, what is pure iron like?
Q1, part (c) Describe the action of heat on:
(i) Sodium hydrogen carbonate
(ii) lead(II) nitrate
For further marks, determine which question came from (a) the AQA Extracting metals and making alloys section on the BBC website and (b) the 1973 O&C Chemistry O Level paper
Was it Yes Minister or Dilbert who suggested the idea of countering a disastrous project failure with a meaningless reorganisation?
It does seem to me that a random swapping of job titles won't excuse pouring £17Bn down the drain - though given the amount of talent in government, a quick reshuffle is probably the best they can manage.
However, if our overlords and rulers are so worried about IT "waste", why not change the certainly useless Chief Social Scientist role into something useful - like a Chief Computer Scientist job? In fact, given government's history with IT projects, they probably don't need an actual person to fulfill the role. A framed notice will do - it would read "It'll cost more than you can imagine, it'll be delivered late or not at all and it'll never work properly".
... with the three channels of snooker on at the moment.
(For those who want to check: BBC2, BBC HD and channel 301)
ISTM the accusation of "wilful blindness" is fitting to almost any situation where a person in power should reasonably have known what was going on. Whether that person is running a company or a government - maybe the time has come to start investigating more people, including our (ex) leaders and holding them to the same standard.
Though really this is just the start. The big question is: what happens now? Presumably all the NI/NoTW underlings who are still the subject of police charges will be duly processed, but the guy at the top will just walk away?
There are lots of embedded PC formats. Apart from the fairly popular Mini (and Micro)-ATX there is also a 3½ inch "biscuit" format and a 4 inch PC104 size, which seems to be about the same as this new offering.
These are intended for embedded use - as is the Pi, though given the power and heatsinking requirements of Intel's latest attempt, I'm not convinced that's the market they're aiming for.
It's definitely not a Pi-worrier.
An idle thought: surely no town's tourist board would sink so low as to make up a story like this, just to attract visitors. Would it?
"Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster"
Luckily for us, the annual increments in processing power have masked the continual degradation in software performance. If Moore's law does hit the buffers, someone somewhere is going to have a 50 year project on their hands to fix all the inefficiencies, crocks, bad design and unoptimised code.
Maybe once there is an actual incentive to write fast, efficient code instead of the traditional "do whatever it takes, just deliver it by Monday" approach to software development, we'll have a renaissance in programming. If we're lucky, we may even find that once people start writing well-designed, reliable and efficient software that programmers start to win back some professional esteem and respect, too.
I am told that Mac have internal moisture sensors that "go off" when dampened and are used by their service people to deny warranty claims. It may be that a kid with a good aim didn't actually destroy the Macs, just dampened them enough to void their warranties. Although to describe them therefore as being "destroyed beyond repair" may just be a ploy to get the insurance (or the child's parents) to pay out.
> He did not engage in theft, fraud or extortion
It's a fair bet that if he had - or if FB had thought he had, he'd been in an american prison camp by now, and not just for a few months.
Never mind. There'll be another olympic deadline along in another 4 years. I'm sure that with enough effort and hard work, they'll be able to miss that one, as well.
> You're not, after all, going to buy a crap TV just because it can connect to the internet.
But a lot of people do buy a crap TV because the nice person in the shop tells them how wonderful it is.
A lot of people have their TV adjusted completely wrongly. Colours (set to the garish "demo" mode), sound may or may not be stereo, treble/bass heavy and until recently may even be watching analog channels (Hi, Mum!), no matter how often their diligent and loving sons explain the "benefits" of digital, HD and even calibrate the set with test images. They know what they like and no amount of telling will convince them otherwise.
> support extended from three to five years by Canonical.
The "support" only covers the O/S - not the applications. So while you can get bug fixes and security patches (and maybe some O/S enhancements, too), your applications will remain frozen in time.
During the three or five years that this release will be supported, almost every piece of accompanying application software will get updated (or die off). However, there's no guarantee, or even hint that it will be possible to install those upgraded apps onto 12.04 due to library incompatibilities, pre-requisites or the like. To get all that stuff to work, you'll still need to move to a newer Ubuntu - one that does supply the libgodknowswhat.so.3.99 when all that's downloadable for Ubuntu 12.04 is v3.98, even though there's ostensibly still support for the release. Operating systems are only useful if they can run apps. When the apps move ahead of an O/S, it becomes obsolete, no matter how much or little support it's provider gives it.
That whiteboard is the source of every tabloid headline (and probably article, too) over the past 10 years.
Since it's got "boffins" on it, maybe it includes all El Reg headlines, too?
> "Technology diplomat" Ben Hammersley – who has worked as a journalist ... Hammersley said that companies shouldn't do community give-back as some kind of add-on after they'd made lot of money, but that the business should be "focused" on the community from the get-go.
... As this guy has been so successful at running design companies and startups in the past. Oh, hang on - no he hasn't. He's never done anything entrepreneurial himself, all he's done is sit on the sidelines and write about other people's companies.
So while his flowery prose and inspirational word-smithing sounds all very fine, he has no practical experience to back it all up (and worse: no personal investment in what he's advocating). So really he's just pontificating about how he thinks things should work. Beware the pundit - inventing new words ("podcast") doesn't mean he knows how to run a tech. business.
The thing to remember about all TV presenters, reporters, interviewers and correspondents is that first and foremost they are de-facto EMPLOYEES of one or other public body. As such their only allegiance is to keeping the pay cheques flowing. If that means toeing the company line, tugging the forelock to the arts graduates and capricious "Head of ..." who can sideline you on a whim ("he/she just doesn't have the right image, darlink"), then so be it.
These on screen people are not there because of their qualifications, nor for their ability to explain / educate or even entertain - though it's almost all entertainment, these days. No, they're there simply because they have an insubstantial, undefinable quality that makes them "right" for a piece to camera (or because they contribute to a quota). Consequently, if the planning meeting decides that they should spend a day learning to put angle brackets around words and call it "programming", then that's what they do - and are grateful for the opportunity.
For all it's cuddly "auntie" facade, I doubt if there are any other publicly funded organisations in the country that are quite so institutionally totalitarian - or as unaccountable in their dealings with "talent", as the BBC. So you can't really blame the presenters for the crass, simplistic or simply inaccurate content of their reports. They're all just standing in front of cameras, having their strings pulled by unqualified, dull-eyed production-types back on the mothership.
The difference between shipping "precious" (only until availability increases and prices drop) metals to Earth from asteroids and bombing the planet from orbit is not much more than where the delivery comes down - and how fast.
Success is not being at the top of the food chain, it's being at the top of the gravity well.
Poor change testing
Going in to a change with no certainty (or even a reasonable prospect) that it will work. Whether that's because of lack of time to work out how to do the change and then carry it out, live - or a lack of preparation due to test/mirror systems that don't actually reflect the production environment - changes being assigned to staff who have no real clue what they're doing (but it was their turn) - or even just systems that are intrinsically untestable and have to be changed "hot". One place I was involved with made over 12,000 production changes a year. Of those 60% were to undo earlier changes, correct improperly applied changes or to add diagnostics so the support teams could work out what was going on - oh yes: then another change to fix the problem and another change after that to take the diagnostics off again.
> the US military would like to be able to deliver a warhead to any spot around the planet in less than an hour.
Whereas most other global purveyors of firey death would be happy to wait an extra day or two and send it by a more traditional means: DHL, anonymous shipping container, back of a Transit, etc.
Still, I suppose when you simply have to make the 6 o'clock news, extreme measures are necessary
I think I see the problem
> the new movement ... <name of website>
It's kinda difficult to get people to become "netizens" by promoting a website to them. If they can get to the URL they're already converted.
Maybe next, she'll start promoting letterboxes with a mass-mailing campaign.
> ... many criminals will try to reduce the risk of long term prison. ... using a replica firearm ... get a shorter sentence if caught.
But that just illustrates the irrationality (and complete lack of actuarial sense) of criminals who do that. They are implicitly saying "if I rob some premises and get away with £1000 but get caught with a replica gun I'll only go to jail for X years, but if I use a real gun, I'll be locked up for Y years".
So they have done a calculation and decided that £1000 is a worthwhile reward for X years of lockup, but not for a longer term. It still seems to me that this is extraordinarily dumb behaviour and is a prime example of a crim still assuming they won't be caught - but just hedging their bets on the offchance they do.
OK all you criminals out there, hands up if ...
When you were planning your last heist (english translation - robbery) or slaying (murder), how many of you thoroughly worked out your plan and then ran the risk / reward possibilities through a spreadsheet before deciding whether to go ahead, or try something less risky instead.
No-one? How odd. You'd think that with "the needle" on the table, there'd be some sort of rational assessment on whether to embark on a life of crime. Maybe, it's just that people who slide into such a career (and it does seem to be a career - greater job "security" than most employment opportunities offer) aren't great at controlling their impulses - or have an innate view that they won't get caught.
If that is the reason then it explains why, 150 years after prisons became "popular" as a way of dealing with criminals, we still have a crime problem. After all that time, you'd think that if chokey worked as a deterrent, the problem would have gone away by now. As it is, the only things that a custodial sentence (or a terminal one) achieves is to remove the unsuccessful (i.e. the ones who get caught) criminals from society for a period and also, as Chris W says to satisfy the victims' and society's demands for revenge - or "justice" as it's usually called.
> I can understand why people never like it when I ask what will happen if they go out of business, but it annoys me that they haven't considered the possibility.
We all already know the answer to this: they'll just disappear, along with the company (and your only recourse for complaint). it's not that they haven't considered the possibility, it's just that they have nothing to gain from telling you that all your investment in virtual goods and chattels are just that: virtual. They don't really exist, except in the benevolence of the supplier. And when that goes away, so does all the stuff you've paid them for.
This is by no means a new phenomenon - and it has nothing to do with the internet.
Even 20, 30 years back; probably even further, people were going into "hi fi" showrooms, asking about stuff and then going down the road to the box-shifters and buying it for less (generally much less). Even in the 80s and 90s it was hard for a specialist shop to come up with a reason why customers should pay top-price, when usually the only value-add was "and this one comes with OXYGEN FREE CABLES" and their opening question was always "how much have you got to spend?"
I can't say I'm sorry they're going, or gone. While it was nice to go into the back room and talk bollocks to a pretentious nerd: about phase-shift and "a slight brightness in the upper-mid range", it was nothing more than entertainment and no-one (well: almost no-one) took it seriously unless they were majorly maths deficient and couldn't tell a deci-Bell from a cucumber.
The same principle applies to pretty much all retail durables, desirables and consumables. Unless there's something unique and well-defined that makes highstreet shopping worth more than buying from a commoditised or internet outlets, there's little reason to keep them around.
Adapt or die.
It's not a question of teaching/not-teaching Latin, or any other subject. It's more a question of
"if we want to teach <subject>, what do we drop from the curriculum to make room for it?"
Around here, children get a bit less than 25 hours a week of being taught. There's only so much that can be squeezed into that time. Should Latin or computing be included - and if so at the expense of what?
> computer programming is a meritocracy. Not everyone will get a prize, and nobody should get a prize just for trying
In a lot of places that's exactly what happens.
"Smith, it's time for your annual review. I see from your timesheets you've been working 60 hours a week. Excellent. Keep up the good work."
"Jones. It seems you've been getting in late and leaving early. We can't have that sort of behaviour, you're going to have to pull your socks up."
Far too many IT departments (and companies in general) reward effort: how much energy you expend trying to move a mysterious bug or a large rock, rather than the results achieved: one person with a JCB gets more done in 10 minutes than an army of rock-pushers (especially if they're arranged in a circle - as that's the obvious way to apply more people to the task) does in a week.
However since too many decision-makers and salary-deciders have no methods for measuring IT productivity (which, for a lot of so-called IT "staff", is the only reason they still have a job) they decide your fate based on what they can quantify.
So instead of teaching children to code, maybe they would be more successful if they were taught to sleep with their eyes open. Although a lot of kids in a lot of classrooms seem to have already mastered that art.
 Or causes more damage, depending on skill and training.
> Explain to me how a $400 computer plus a thumb drive is a fraction of the costs of a $30 computer?
Nothing could be simpler to explain.
Schools already have PCs coming out of their metaphorical ears. They're everywhere. hence to plug in a thumbdrive containing "Raspberry Linux" requires no additional hardware and therefore no additional costs. The schools already have the PCs necessary to supply all the ancillary parts: power, keyboard, mouse, display. Total cost: a couple of quid for a USB stick.
Compare that to dropping a load of RPi boards into a school. On it's own, each board can do nothing. It has no power, keyboard, mouse or display. They don't come as part of the "$25" package and therefore have to be provided at extra cost by the school, as without them, the boards are useless. You can't "just borrow" the parts from existing PCs - as then those PCs can't be used until they are returned. Economically it makes no sense to disable a £300 PC in order to make a $25 device work.
It's not as if we're talking about a school in a faraway country. We're talking about Leeds - so the "cheap" solution is just to provide a software solution as a hardware one is neither helpful, efficient or reliable.