Posts by Dan 55 15445 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Jun 2009
It's for BMWs so they are being ripped off...
BMW is now charging $18 per month for heated seats in some countries
It seems there were problems selling subscriptions on with the car not too long ago:
Connected car data handover headache: There's no quick fix... and it's NOT just Land Rovers
This source disagrees:
On the Apple IIgs, the 256K of built-in main memory is divided into two sections: The "fast" RAM, banks 00 and 01, and the "slow" RAM, banks E0 and E1. CPU access to slow RAM required the CPU to slow to the 1MHz speed of the earlier Apple II models. (Later models with 1MB on board are similar, just with more fast RAM).
It's possible to set a soft switch ($C035) to control write shadowing, in which writes to bank 00 and 01 are copied automagically into banks E0 and E1. This allows the CPU to run at full speed while accessing this memory. The primary purpose of this was to allow the CPU to write data into the video buffer, which was in slow RAM, without slowing down.
So it is only a section of memory that is slowed down to 1MHz (screen display and I/O so disk drives keep working), and there is a solution which allows the screen to be written to at near full speed.
I quoted the question for clarity but the answer agrees with the question and goes into more detail.
If you had programmed any other 8-bit machine you'd know this is not the norm. Every other machine uses: (i) regularly-sized memory areas; (ii) with a single point of control.
Going to have to disagree with that one. Take a look at the Spectrum +2A/+3's memory map. You OUT to one port setting a bit which turns on the special +2A/+3 memory map mode and then set or unset two other bits which choose which of the four special maps you want to use. Or you don't set the special bit and use the previous 128K/+2 memory map with the slight difference that you set or unset a further bit which is the upper bit of which of the four ROM banks you want in the bottom 16K.
Then is another port which you OUT to which sets up the 128K/+2 memory mapping. You set or unset the bottom bit of which of the four ROM banks you want in the bottom 16K (however if you really are on a 128K/+2 then the upper bit in the port mentioned above doesn't exist and you're only switching between two ROM banks using this bit) and set or unset three bits which select which RAM bank is active in the top 16K. Also, just becuse, setting or clearing another bit will switch the screen which is displayed.
Or you can select Spectrum 48K mode with another bit and then there's no way back.
With a C64, near the top of the memory there are a bunch of banks. The first bank is RAM or overwritten with the low part of the cartridge ROM if you have the cartridge plugged in. Then above this bank you have a bank with the BASIC ROM, or RAM, or overwritten with the high part of the cartridge ROM if you have a cartridge plugged in. Next there is a bit of RAM, above that a smaller bank which can be I/O, RAM, or the character ROM. Finally there is the kernel ROM or the high part of the cartridge ROM if you have a cartridge plugged in - again.
If you're a fan of everything being possible in two or three ways, each method being a particular combination of two or three other discrete inputs then, yeah, there's a lot to like in the world of Woz.
If you set 80STORE you're saying you want to page in display memory and the PAGE2 and HIRES bits allow you to choose the amount of memory, depending on the current screen resolution. Or if you're just interested in RAM use RAMRD and you get all the alterate RAM paged in for reading including the display memory.
Given that if you use RAMRD you could page out the code you're currently executing, being able to page just the display memory is useful if you're only interested in accessing the display memory.
There is a conspiracy theory, which often nonsensically fingers Steve Jobs himself from then beyond the Apple grave, that the clock was limited, but basic facts seem to disagree.
Apple IIgs on old-computers.com:
Sales were strong initially and the IIGS even outsold the black and white Macintosh units that were its contemporary. Sadly, Apple wanted Macintosh to be its future. The total number of advertisements and commercials for the IIGS could probably be counted on one hand. If the computer had been introduced a year or two earlier, things might have been different. The Apple IIGS disappeared from the market in 1992.
In one final gasp, the Apple II supporters at Apple designed the Apple IIGS Plus, code named "Mark Twain". It had an 8Mhz 65C816, a built in SuperDrive, 2MB on the motherboard, and a hard drive. Prototypes leaked out and a user group that has one and wrote a series of articles about it. Apple management vetoed this unit.
Writing odd values to odd addresses to page memory is par-for-the-course on 8-bit machines, the Commodore 64's memory map was probably just as crazy. The IIe had even more reason to do this than the C64 as it was maintaining backwards compatibility with computers and expansion cards over 6 years, the C64 didn't have that excuse.
The IIgs could throw everything out and start again as it was 16-bit, it would make no sense to use the same memory map as its predecessors unless it's emulating software for them.
The main thing that killed the IIgs was Apple deciding to artificially limit the speed of it to 2.8Mhz so it wouldn't compete with the Mac or any other 16-bit computer of the time.
Also, the main thing that killed the III was Jobs deciding he wanted the case just so as it looked good and the board components had to be crammed into such a small space and he didn't like fans because they made a noise so it overheated, the result was the computer was guaranteed to cook itself.
Woz I doubt was responsible for making the IIgs artificially slow and definitely wasn't responsible for silly case and ventilation decisions as he's on record as saying it was designed by marketing (aka Jobs).
NI is under UK GDPR.
Data protection and data transfers on the island of Ireland after the post-Brexit transition period
However EEA individuals which used a UK business up until the end of 2020 have and always will have their data stored under the GDPR as it was in the UK the end of 2020.
UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR)
Personal data about individuals located within the EEA, which was gathered by UK businesses before 1 January 2021, will be subject to the EU GDPR as it stood on 31 December 2020. This is known as the 'frozen GDPR'.
As soon as the UK diverges, this will be a headache for UK businesses as they will have to deal with two sets of customers: 1) pre-Brexit EEA customers and 2) post-Brexit EEA customers + all UK customers + RoW customers. Additionally post-Brexit EEA customers in the second group depend on the UK getting a favourable adequacy decision with the EU, so perhaps you could say there are three groups.
I guess no "sideloaded" (ugh) apk on the SD card is readable until Android finds it or Play Protect gets round to okaying it, and a side effect it's removed from the menu because it's not readable.
By the way, Symbian could do this properly about two decades ago (Nokia 6600), but that's progress for you.
No idea, it's just a zip file.
In the online help it's clear that WhatsApp (the organisation) supply no contact management tools and put the onus on the user to somehow limit the number of contacts that WhatsApp (the app) sees using unspecified methods.
Hey, the kids' toys a decade later managed to get the kids to write professional business tools a decade or two after that so they shouldn't be knocked that much.
However the locked-down kids' toys of the 2000s got the kids to write Teams and other Electron-driven nonsense today so something's gone wrong somewhere.
I'm not sure how much it helps in death (probably not a great deal), but if you want to protect against your partner becoming incapacitated then you need to take out a "lasting power of attorney" before it happens or you'll be frozen out of your partner's finances until you go to court... and UK courts have quite a backlog.
But then again, even applying for LPA is a problem.
To be honest French bureaucracy sounds easier.
That, apparently, is the second-best proof that UK can do.
If you as a British citizen want to marry abroad and the other country requires real cast-iron solid proof that only UK officialdom can possibly guarantee that you are not married, you affirm it then the British consulate in that country displays it for 7 days*, if nobody sees it in that time and objects then the consulate issues a "certificate of no impediment".
So there you go, what is a routine letter or certificate in many countries becomes handwavey nonsense in the UK.
* in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.
In about three years time they'll stop working altogether even if you wanted to pay and you'll have to buy a new car if you want heated seats.
Correct, that's why they've decided to generate a tonne of landfill as they can't possibly run two sets of APIs. It makes sense during a climate crisis to make yet more incompatible tat and transport it from China to the UK. Anyone who doesn't throw out this version and by the next must hate the planet or something.
Not supporting their products ought to be illegal but that PR nonsense quoted near the start of the article should mean they're fined double.
It's very probably IT ineptitude down at the hospital, it's certainly not in any government department.
About the conclusion near the end of the article:
"The Government now needs to extend the UK's influence within the global technology landscape, to ensure that future technologies are developed and used in ways that align with our values and, crucially, uphold the rights and freedoms of people in the UK and across the world," the report concludes.
That is extremely difficult or even impossible to do after Brexit. The EU's values were the UK's values before it voted in the referendum, this is not true any more after Brexit. In any area were the UK wants to influence foreign countries, it is now weaker.
The data is 7 years old, and that's all that's necessary to see that tale of victimhood about the UK being ignored by other EU countries sold to us at the time of the referendum by Vote Leave et all was wrong. Any data about our position in the EU after 2016 is irrelevant anyway, we'd burnt our bridges by that point.
There are three ways out of this hole, either be happy with our post-Brexit lot and not even try to influence other countries, spend a lot of time and money trying to influence similar-sized and smaller countries on the other side of the world and have committees write reports such as this saying we're not getting far, or try and work out a way back from Brexit. Everything leads back to Brexit, whether we like to admit it or not.
Data says something different.
To the question "Is the UK marginalised in the EU?":
Overall, using the best available data on EU decision-making, there is strong evidence that on average the UK has not been marginalised in the making of EU laws. The UK government has been closer to final policy outcomes than most other governments. This is also true for policy issues the UK government has been particularly concerned about, although there is some evidence that on certain policy issues, including internal market and trade, the UK has been less content with final EU decisions.
But there are some important caveats to these findings.
This dataset only covers policies that are subject to the main EU decision-making procedures, so not the EU budget or international treaties. The data only goes up to 2008, and obviously a lot has happened since then.
To the question "Is the UK a winner or loser in the EU Council?":
The council overwhelmingly decides by consensus, which means the UK is on the winning majority side almost 87% of the time.
The UK government might be more willing than other governments to publicly register its opposition to EU decisions.
The data does not tell us what went on behind the scenes on each of these issues, and hence how much the UK disagreed with the majority position when it recorded its opposition – perhaps the UK was on the winning side on all the key issues it really cared about in this period.
To the question "Do UK MEPs get key positions of power in Europe?":
In short, UK MEPs have captured many powerful agenda-setting positions. They have been vice-presidents, political group leaders, and chairs of important committees. UK MEPs have also won rapporteurships on key legislation, which has enabled them to shape EU law.
Moreover, UK MEPs have not been “underrepresented” relative to the MEPs from the other big member states. And all this has been despite the growing number of Ukip MEPs, who have not competed for many key offices or rapporteurships.
So, the UK was not at all marginalised, unlike what a certain leave-pushing character would have you believe, and it only started to marginalise itself from 2010 onwards.
And finally: "Britons among least knowledgeable about European Union".
So, there we go.
Presumably the galaxy brains behind Brexit like Daniel Hannan and Dominic Cummings had both fallen asleep in GCSE/O-Level geography when the teacher was talking about spheres of influence, or they sold Brexit to a credulous populace on a lie.
Unfortunately for the rest of us this problem, as well as many other problems with Brexit, can't be fixed by throwing more flags, bunting, and spitfires at it.
Can't say I ever saw anyone raving about Atom, which VCS is based on, but as soon as you stick MS' name on it it's suddenly fantastic.
Only the end result is they gave away patient data to a "well-connected" company.
And even if the hospitals in question managed to earn money out of it, it shouldn't have been done.
Not having had the time to look properly at the director's list on Companies House, I have only found out that the first director in the list was also high up in an NHS Trust so there is a conflict of interest, and there is an high churn rate of directors in this company of others possibly doing the same? (As I said, not enough time.)
But let's shrug and carry on.
The BBC Domesday Project is the classic example of losing data, but not because there was anything wrong with the project itself.
All the original code and data was passed to the National Data Archive in the mid-80s but they failed to archive it, the someone made a website reconstruction of one of the disks in the early 2000s with running from the National Archives at Kew, but they also failed to archive it and it was lost when he died. source
Then the BBC did a web-based version in 2011 and the National Archives managed to archive it, but search doesn't work so it's pretty useless.
It's been down to the Cambridge Centre for Computing History Museum and Domesday 86 (set up by two people) to archive it and the results are better than the governmental bodies who are supposed to be doing this.
So the article is right in that it's better to leave it to people who know what they're doing, but some of these people should be gainfully employed by national archives.
You're absolutely right, nobody in the entire history of the internet ever logged in as user@server.domain.com.
It would be absolutely impossible to query server.domain.com to authenticate user. You could never trust server.domain.com with DANE and you could never trust the user with a certificate instead of a password.
It's utterly unworkable. We must stick with crackable passwords and "Log in with Bigcorp".
You're right. There's no way on earth you could change your ISP router or use a 2nd router in bridging mode. It's a good thing that the W3C didn't give any person or business the option to self-host their online identities because that crappy ISP router scenario would make it unworkable for everyone on the planet who tried to do this.
/s
Why not read up on the IMAP authentication methods that a decent IMAP server offers, instead of incorrectly attributing Exchange server's deficiencies to IMAP?
I was the upvoter. For the downvoters - https://dontkillmyapp.com/.
As a user your choices are Pixel, Nokia, or HTC if you don't want your apps randomly killed.
You can still mine bitcoin on a C64 though. Imagine a beowulf cluster of those.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
