Re: Octuple bit?
A Byte has 8 bits, not 8 values. It's nearly a Nibble though which is 4 bits.
1042 posts • joined 12 Jun 2009
A Byte has 8 bits, not 8 values. It's nearly a Nibble though which is 4 bits.
I thought it was quite clear. It's per 2 x 1MHz block for that region. Given this is for the whole of the 28GHz band that's a fair chunk of change. Not sure what the licence period is to be fair but it would seem like 15 years as they said based on the existing rates. I'd say we just need a flat rate tax on spectrum with the government falling in line with global standards. It's not like the UK would operate different frequencies than elsewhere any more because nobody would make hardware to suit it.
The point was that uplift isn't an option yet, and buying a spare is rewarding them for not putting proper support in place.
Now I've no idea what you're talking about. ALL hardware in the EU is subject to 2 years warranty regardless. It's the 10 day replacement that concerns me - if my network is down for 10 days it's slower than a postal service.
10 days?! And there I was thinking it was a serious product because it had an HP badge. I've bought bananas with a better support policy than that!
Ah the irony, the British will be the most upset about English becoming the global standard language due to the Internet. Comically the Germans are OK with it and several of them recently told me not to bother trying to learn German because they now all speak English since the Internet caught on :)
We, like them, will have to learn to speak "English (United States)" :/
We've got loads of water on earth! If you're going to look for something make it something we're short of, like helium, or whales. Wet rocks we've got, and nobody is even using the wet rocks we have other than the seals, and they are really only using a small proportion of the wet rocks...
Lol I love faux security. Long password and low number of attempts - all that's achieved is more help desk calls. Meanwhile revocation of access is impossible because so many people know and need the password.
Amazing how many people do the things that seem a good idea and aren't and so few do the things that seem trivial but are effective. I've never seen someone salt their AD passwords for instance despite Rainbow tables making it necessary.
The reason for this is that the obsessive it bod who insisted on military grade security for the internal systems doesn't get consulted when moving to cloud because he never delivered anything on time or budget.
Vanilla cloud can be delivered on time and under budget very easily, making it look a success immediately, and the guy who implemented it a team player who works for the company rather than against.
The world isn't fair, the trick seems to be not caring about the outcome which most of us find impossible, myself included.
Amazon will be forgiven quickly for this because they will own up, fix the issue, and most importantly because they have already shown their value over internal IT to most of their customers.
Incorrect. Read csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf to find out why cloud actually is a very specific thing.
Indeed, which is why someone starting an article "As far as I'm concerned, there's really no difference between what I'd call a “traditional” homespun virtualised infrastructure and what they call “private cloud” these days." shouldn't be writing said article. There is a very well defined explanation of what constitutes a cloud from NIST (they wrote it a decade ago) and it's available at csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf.
A quick read of it's two pages will explain why Hyper-V without a properly set up SC-VMM (and most are not fully implemented) and vSphere in pretty much any form are not clouds at all. Neither, for that matter, is vCloud Air as it lacks various cloud functionality.
It's entirely possible to implement a private cloud on top of these technologies, but it's extremely rare for that particular juice to be worth the squeeze when compared to just buying public cloud.
@nigel 11 the law in the UK is that the goods have to perform as advertised. These goods don't and never did which means instant refund regardless what the manufacturer says, no different just because it's a car. The only way VW can get around this is if modifications keep the same or better power while producing the same or better emissions when compared to the spec sold. Other countries may vary in their laws (although I don't believe they do in the EU) but the UK is pretty clear on consumer law.
There are plenty of tricks left to reduce emissions and improve fuel efficiency. Sadly they all increase manufacturing cost and complexity and so are completely ignored.
Why would I let them retrofit anything to my car? It doesn't work as advertised, I want a full refund lickety split as per my consumer rights. The fact that this would then write off any depreciation I have incurred since purchase is besides the point...win for the consumer for a change.
Competent systems don't include taking tapes home. I'd love to see an example of a virus which can automatically infect storage systems on two separate sites. I assume you've a link to information about one?
It's infinitely more likely, however, that your Windows system (which has many, many documented viruses) holding the encryption keys you mentioned will get a virus which destroys those keys, making all your tapes effectively blank...
"In theory, yes. In practice,"
Yes, and in practice I've seen more tapes with gibberish filling them because the admin has no clue about backup than I have hackers wiping 2 entire SAN systems due to poor security practices. In my experience, those clinging to tape do so because they are scared after a bad experience (i.e. they F'd up) rather than because they understand risk and requirement.
If you have tapes in your house then you'd be the first one I'd sack for breaking of procedures. It's wholly inappropriate to have copies of corporate data in your own home as there is no way to revoke access if you're fired or some other HR procedure is enacted.
You mention older archives (Archives are not backup and vice versa), with no mention of the business value in recovering out of date information. A database from 6 months ago is worthless in most circumstances - a database from the day before yesterday is worthless in most stock control systems!
You mention a virus as if it's a risk I didn't deal with, snapshots will give identical protection in a virus outbreak to tape, only my recovery time is under a second and yours could be weeks.
As I said, write down your actual scenarios and work out what will and will not cover you. I have yet to find something other than mythical hacking incidents which would require a tape. Even then, I wouldn't need tape to have a read only copy.
Employees can't do anything when they are fired - you revoke their access before you tell them they are fired.
I've never come across a hacking incident as you describe, but I guess in theory it could happen. But then, it's at least as likely that Iron Mountain could burn down when you need your tapes. Probably more likely for the majority of businesses who don't have hackers out to get them (so, everyone but Sony really).
WTF? I said two systems in two locations! I would never advocate using a single disk system with no second copy, but having two disk systems in two locations each with their own copy of the data and their own snapshots is perfectly safe - please tell me what the danger is with this scenario.
@Steve Jones, I never said I didn't have multiple copies in multiple locations with multiple recovery points. What I actually said was there's no need for tape in a solution with replicated DR SAN, and there isn't for all the reasons you mention.
Online disks do need power, but the DR copy is using that power whether you put tapes next to them or not.
Modern data backup is wholly different to traditional backup. If you lose a RAID set you'd be in DR regardless due to the number of probable affected systems - a LUN in VMware may have 40 VMs on it, so I would fail to DR in that scenario rather than recover a backup to the broken SAN which would take many hours longer than the recovery time to a well configured and tested DR site. We're not backing up one server at a time any more, and if you take the time to look at the various recovery scenarios you'll realise SAN based backup fits them all nicely - the NetApp brainwashing, sorry marketing, explains this quite well if you need it spoon fed but just making a list of when and why you'd use a copy of the data will get you there pretty quickly on your own. When you do this, you'll realise that a failure in the extremely redundant and highly available SAN would be the only time you'd ever need a second copy elsewhere - and this is a DR scenario because your extremely redundant and highly available shared storage is broken. Every other scenario involves getting data from a recovery point, which can live on the primary storage without problem. The main blocker to this, is that people keep too many recovery points, thinking they are making archives.
LOL AC your understanding would be spot on if you hadn't missed the recovery points available in that disk system. In reality if you delete everything on one of my solutions, you create a snapshot which is empty (but the changes require no new space) which I could then roll back on either primary or recovery SAN. You, sir, are one of the people I need to explain this stuff to on a daily basis.
Backups and replication are not archival. Keeping a backup tape for a year is NOT compliant with any regulations. If you need to keep an archive, keep an archive which is a complete record of data, which a daily backup is not.
Block level data replication is just fine for databases which can be quiesced. I never mentioned sync rep, you just filled that in with your excitement at correcting someone.
While tape may have the best $/GB for storage media, it doesn't have the best £/GB for backup data, or even close to it.
Tape, by its very nature, means having a whole second copy of your data, so if I have 100GB data and change 1GB per day then I need 107GB of storage for my backups.
Assuming I have a replica at DR, with disk based backup my backup data in this same scenario would only be 7GB on top of what I was storing anyway, making SAN the better $/GB for backup data.
There are people who still need tape, but the majority no longer do when using appropriate backup schedules and retentions. Almost nobody I speak to understands retention unfortunately so I inevitably have to explain why keeping a backup for a year is a poor idea :(
"It's like having an issues with the engine of your car, the mechanic quotes you £50k for repairs, when you can buy a new car for £40k, which will you choice"
But to stretch the analogy, the new car is the same Vauxhall Nova model you had before, from the same year, and is still rusty and crap but some wideboy has fitted it with NOS so it goes faster than the old one.
I agree, I'll be truly amazed if MS HR don't just produce the various scoring methods and results used and close this down lickety split. Doesn't mean it's fair, just that they can make it look fair enough to close any actions off.
The main difference is that in the UK it's the journalists doing the "hacking" and the telcos are "outraged" :)
"that alone justifies the need for View"
No it doesn't, it justifies having a proper computer to use when you're not mobile with your tablet. I regularly write 40-100 page reports and have never found a function the iPad version of word is lacking despite lots of different formatting and pictures. I need to use the big computer for Visio, but then I just wait until I'm on my laptop. Tablets are great as tablets, trying to make them a full computer ends up with a Surface pro, which is a small laptop rather than a tablet. I like the Surface Pro but it really is a terrible tablet.
The same enterprise readiness that sells other Apple devices by the crapton, yes. You clearly haven't done your research here, Apple have all sorts of enterprise features, and even as a Microsoft gold partner we have loads of customers who are entirely Mac based on the desktop. Media companies still love them and will love the iPad Pro. Just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean there isn't a market!
"Copied from Samsung"
Hard not to, Samsung have tried literally every combination of chip, hardware and case design, thrown it all against a wall and seen what sticks. This is what allows them to be first to market with various things, because they remove the design phase and just try everything while Apple are busy testing and researching. Both ways work just fine, and both companies have good market share :)
"at least with a surface you get a full desktop OS not a smartphone OS."
Which is smashing for people who need that OS but not for people who don't need that OS but do need an iPad App. Not all use-cases are your use cases ;)
Not really, they are aimed at different markets. Apple will sell at least as many iPad Pros to business as MS sell Surface Pro. The difference is that Apple also have the home market with the Mini and Air where most others have failed to gain traction. There are plenty of people who want/need the iPad Pro, you just aren't one of them and you've clearly not dealt with those people and don't have the imagination to see their needs. It's not aimed at playing Angry Birds and Spotify, it's aimed at serious use as demonstrated in the demo by the various companies present who actually showed you the use-cases that will make this sell like hot cakes!
"Apple really knows how to kill a prime use case for this device."
Yeah, their business is really struggling as a result of nerds like you not being able to do every single thing you can think of with the device. Oh no, wait, they are actually one of the most successful companies of all time who have consistently created use-cases rather than adopt old tired ones.
You only need to RDP because you're doing remote management wrong, even MS have said that. You only need VMware View because you're doing applications wrong. Create applications for the tablet and you don't need the desktop metaphor. Very few applications need the desktop when properly investigated, Adobe is a good example with their demo last night.
No, because most cases have two zip tabs which padlock together and still move.
Lol @danny 14 update your skills ffs. Even Windows devices don't work like that these days!
A good excuse might be hinting to Reg readers that now is the time to buy Apple stock. It'll bounce back once the TV and Phone start selling in huge numbers, and I can see them shifting quite a few iPad Pro devices to non home users too. All our media customers would think the iPP costs peanuts for what it offers them, and just like the Surface Pro will therefore sell just fine to business.
You seem confident that this iOS device couldn't have an app that streams content from iCloud even though you've never seen it?
Don't forget that in America they now have the DMCA which would prevent Apple helping people use illegal movies since all movies are rights protected. That was not the case with MP3 where CD was completely open, and there was no DMCA.
because right now 4k is pointless. Apple have a long history of supporting only useful new technologies which work as required. Any 4k content you could actually access by streaming will be so compressed as to be no better than scaled up 1080 content anyway, which your 4k tv could probably do itself. Most of the world don't have the bandwidth to stream 4k either, and finally they needed the hardware to be cost effective.
I'm not saying it's better off without it, but I agree with their decision to leave it for the future and concentrate on other things for now.
This deserves a slow clap at best. Could I get published by documenting a denial of service on traffic lights by gluing in the button? Obvious attacks don't need to be published although this may end in the car people adding a secure tag to their LIDAR systems - something they'd have probably done anyway to prevent interference once these become popular. Obviously blinding the system will always cause havoc, but getting out of the car and beating the wanker who's laughing and holding a laser pointer within 100 yards would sort that...
"and more for less?"
Less money, maybe, but the Apple TV has a much lower cost than anything from Google. Not all cost is monetary, Apple are just the only company who only take money for their products, Google takes all sorts from you and your family in order to make the purchase price lower. For instance, Apple don't have a website showing my location at any given time since I bought my iPhone (yes, Google has a website showing your meanderings with your Android spy phone)...
We haven't even finished cleaning the McAfee virus software off all the machines on the Internet yet!
All my data are encrypted. They can have at it, it's only pr0n anyway :op
Simple answer - don't connect to your cloud with the Internet. Cloud doesn't mean Internet connected, you can use MPLS to all major providers.
Ultimately the offline will end up cheaper as dedupe rates begin to suffer with scale. The more data you have the more often you hit the same hash for different data and eventually will get to the point where storing as dedupe actually takes more space than storing native data (because all the pointers etc. need recording alongside the data). BD wouldn't be deduped so as long as ultimate capacity is cheaper that way then it's a winner.
Sadly, I have always seen Bluray as a dead technology thanks to the Internet so have no idea what a blank disk costs for comparison
They probably didn't mention you because no-one cares, a little like Oracle Linux. They never mention VMware in cloud conversations either. If you were a serious competitor you'd be on the list. By serious competitor I don't mean offering a service which competes, I mean offering a service which competes and has the customer base, scale, and brand recognition in the sector. Oracle are big but not recognised for their cloudy products. I hate to say it but I would count Oracle in the "me too" category alongside HP where cloud is concerned. Perhaps I'm wrong, if so I didn't mean to cause offence it's just how I see the cloud landscape right now.
FWIW how often do you see Amazon mentioned in database articles? They have some extremely capable products there...
Latency makes no difference to throughput if you know what you're doing, although the majority in our profession are sadly afflicted by poor throughput with latency.
The other two clouds offer 10Gb links via MPLS so although I've not looked specifically at Google I'm assuming they would too. a quick calc (365 / 2 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 1.25 /1024 /1024) suggests you could upload 18PB in 6 months with this arrangement, although it certainly would require more investment than free would suggest.
Blimey, was I just thanked by several people on the Reg comments for a post disagreeing with someone? Surely I deserve a gold badge for this miracle! :)
"For example, don't ever put a table at the top of a page. As at Office 2010, my version, you still can't then insert a line above it if you need to without a bit of trickery."
I don't seem to have an issue with this, and don't recall it being an issue. go to first cell, press home, press enter. Perhaps they did fix it after 2010 but I'm sure I've done it this way for years.
Agree with AC, many apps just can't be made highly available in the cloud which means they can never meet SLAs for being up during the working day.
Also what's all this jibber jabber about uncertain latency. If you need reliable connectivity, put the cloud on your MPLS with direct connect or express route!
While true, the Edge Touring for £130 has the same mapping functionality (and hardware) as the 810 and the lower down Garmin devices include turn by turn but lack the maps. Even if someone, somewhere finds this useful it will surely not succeed because everybody else will buy the vastly superior devices leaving this lot bankrupt.
Can I decide that it's shit based on the fact that it appears to use the same mount as a Garmin Edge (not mentioned in the article from what I could tell) while offering considerably less functionality than said unit? The Garmin is a little more expensive, but offers cyclist friendly routing with maps and directions on the screen with better battery life than this LED thing. The Garmin also offers offline mapping stored on a huge SD card, and internal GPS which won't run your phone battery down. The garmin gives a polite beep when you need to take action and then displays a nice big arrow on the screen to show where to go.
This is a device that simply doesn't need to exist, the problem was solved many years ago with GPS bike computers.
"We beg for security by design" actually most around here tend to beg for choice such as third party firmwares which this seems to not play with. Ask yourself, out of all the commentards, how many would prefer not to be able to use an app for ordering a sandwich compared to how many are happy that a sandwich app is so secure they can't use it with their modded phone?
Security is fine where appropriate, and banks should definitely do this stuff, but ordering a sandwich just doesn't justify this.
Why Trevor, the article even says that their methods were pretty trivial to bypass? Not that I don't think they shouldn't be rewarded for being competent, our industry could certainly do with a few more competent people...