1169 posts • joined Tuesday 16th June 2009 16:23 GMT
Actually, it's one device with multiple roles.
The generic HID device allows you to define multiple endpoints in the *same* device, thus one HID-compliant device can be both the mouse and the keyboard.
The HID device I'm typing on right now is also my mouse - according to Windows 7, it's one device that sits in both the Keyboard and Mouse categories.
There's a lot of them around - it just tells the OS that it's both. Windows normally enumerates it saying "HID-compliant device" if it says anything and doesn't actually say whether it thinks it's a keyboard or mouse.
The USB device pretends to be the user typing on a keyboard
So it can do anything the user can, as long as it doesn't need to know anything the user knows.
In other words, it can do anything the user might be able to do without a password. If you already know the target operating system (or have a list of target operating systems), then it can issue suitable keyboard commands to upload interesting information, or download a program to do interesting things.
Ok, your device only has user privileges, but for a lot of attacks that may be enough.
Which leads to the question - should you be worried?
I'd say that unless you're doing something particularly secret and juicy, I doubt it as the attack is pretty expensive - and if the mark tosses the freebie into the bin, notices something odd and pops the lid, or even simply uses it on a system that doesn't contain the stuff you're trying to get, then it fails.
Cool idea though - hats off to PJRC and/or Atmel for the very-subtle marketing ploy.
Zero on the fuel, yes
The tax is instead on taking off, landing, and putting people and cargo into the planes.
Why? Because if we taxed aviation fuel much, they'd simply buy it somewhere else (eg France) and burn more bringing it here and back - the plane going London to New York could easily have just done a Paris > London hop right before, and it could have plenty of fuel on board.
"Not taxed" is not the same as "Tax break" - we charge them the tax on the things they can't avoid doing, like landing, taking off and putting things into the planes.
So calling this a tax break is wrong - taxing aviation fuel would be stupid, because it would actually cause the airlines to burn *more* fuel.
Air Passenger Duty is one of the taxes for airlines, along with taxes on the charges for landing and for flying in our airspace.
BTW - do you call the untaxed fuel in diesel trains a tax break as well?
Yes, I do fly.
However, I also know that aviation is a tiny source of CO2 and has made greater improvements in efficiency over the last ten-fifteen years than anything else.
The aviation industry is also putting quite of lot of their *own* money into low and zero net-CO2 emissions research.
Air travel is being used a beating horse - and it's not even a notable source of CO2 (approx. 2-3% of the world output in 2006/2007)
I also know that politicians taking money away from actual research and instead handing it out to householders is going to make the situation worse.
Now if the FIT money went to research and test plants, maybe we'd have more than one solution ready soon.
Large wind plants, large number of solar PV installations *should not be subsidised*. They must stand or fall on their own merits. It's pretty clear that they'll fall.
If we want to reduce our CO2 output, then the *only* currently viable method of baseload generation is nuclear fission.
If we don't like that idea for whatever reason, then we should be spending that money on research and test plants to find an alternative.
Instead, we're pumping money into white elephants.
@handle: Go on then
The builders comment is to do with maintenance. Unless the panels are maintained, the output will drop significantly as stuff covers them.
Maintenance at least means going up there and cleaning them, and you'll also need to fix your roof from time to time.
So the chances of somebody breaking your PV cells are much greater than somebody breaking my roofing tiles.
On the energy budget front, there's very little data and all of it is suspect.
The summaries I could find (very bad meta-study, my apologies), indicate a manufacturing-only energy payback period of somewhere between 3 and 7 years*.
That would imply that your panels would recoup between 2.8 and 6.7 times their construction energy budget over a twenty year lifetime.
As that's from 1989 study and I've only got the abstract, I'll assume that current models take half the energy to make and are twice as efficacious** - thus between 11.4 and 26.6 times.
However, these studies were of the panels themselves, and assuming maximum continuous rated output as per manufacturer and 100% efficiency of the associated electronics and ignoring all energy related to transport and installation.
So bear that in mind when you find out the load factors of your proposed install.
However, 10 times is still really very poor. For it to be really worthwhile, then you'd want at least a hundred times or a thousand times, if only because you know for certain that the energy used to dig up the bits and manufacture it came from a coal plant in China.
It is rather disappointing that so little manufacture energy budget data exists for anything, and there's almost no full-lifecycle data at all.
My real bugbear is that all this taxpayer's money is being thrown into a pit instead of working on actual solutions.
To be honest, I don't really blame you for accepting the handout - I blame the politicians.
I would caution you to ensure that you get a system that pays for itself in under ten years, because it will not be very long before the pendulum swings the other way and the FITs are cancelled.
There is some really exciting work ongoing, like diesel fuel from plant cellulose - put a bit of the FIT money there and a lot of transport could be running on biodiesel made from the waste paper, card and food that currently ends up as compost or in landfill.
* G. Hagedorn, "Hidden Energy in Solar Cells and Photovoltaic Power Stations", Ninth European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, 542 (1989).
** I like that word.
There's a big difference in scale
The biggest single site steam plant in the UK is Drax, at 3.9GW.
On the current plans with >30GW of installed wind, National Grid think that we are likely to lose 15GW over a two hour period, relatively often.
In other words, they think that we could be losing nearly 3.8 Draxes over a couple of hours, several times a year.
Now, that's scary.
Not to mention that Drax can't fail that fast anyway because it's not a single generator - there are six complete independent generating sets.
All large steam plants (Coal/Oil/Gas/Nuclear) are built the same way.
So in fact, right now if we lost the whole of Drax, we'd get a blackout. We don't think it's likely that we'll lose Drax, but we might lose one or two of its generating sets, and we can cope with that.
The sane proposal is improved efficiency and low-carbon big plant generation.
The former is already partly being done, by helping insulation, and for some reason ground and air-source heat pumps are being covered by the FIT despite them not being generation.
CHP is a good idea, except that it's being done wrong - we should not be building a gas or coal-fired power plant where none is needed to send its waste heat into homes, we should be adding waste heat capture to existing plant requirements. (Yes, that'll often be a new-build as retrofit is quite difficult)
We should be building nuclear to take the baseload away from the existing coal.
We could be zero-carbon electricity generation in ten to fifteen years if we built the right plants.
Right now we're building lots of wind, some solar PV and *lots* of gas to cover when it's not or too windy and when it's dark.
We should be investing in research and test plants for wave, solar and anything else we can think of. Wind has already proven that it can't go large-scale regardless of the plant type due to large-area doldrums. Wave might suffer similar issues, I don't know yet.
Erm, going solar PV *is* burying your head in the sand
Tackling the issue means *tackling* the *issue*, not throwing other people's money into a pit.
We'll start assuming that man-released CO2 is going to cause enough climate change worth worrying about.
So, what do we do about this?
- Reduce usage of energy by improving efficiency of everything we do. Start with the big consumers which are heating and transport.
- Reduce the amount of carbon emitted by our energy generation systems, *full lifecycle*. Note that big plants of a given type are considerably more efficient than small plants, require less materials to manufacture than a lot of small plants with the same total output.
Now, does it make sense to push domestic solar PV using massive subsidies? What will that do?
- Note that Solar PV does not generate at night, and has the least output during winter. Those are the times when we use the most energy for heating and lighting, and that cannot be changed.
Aside form that, Solar PV has a pretty poor energy budget for full lifecycle - that's why it still costs so much. It's energy-intensive to make, impossible to repair*, has a relatively low output and is very difficult (maybe impossible) to recycle at the end of lifetime.
In a domestic situation it's even worse because it's in hard to access and easily damaged location. When a builder knocks a brick out of your chimney or drops a tool and smashes a tile, he'll fix it and it won't cost him much. If he smashes a PV panel, replacing it will cost him a fortune - so he'll charge you accordingly for any roof work, or maybe outright refuse to do it.
*When a cell dies in a PV array, it can't be replaced and it turns from being a generator to a resistor, radically affecting the rest of the panel. You can either leave the panel generating a lot less than it used to, or replace the whole panel.
I hate you then
You're not being environmentally friendly, you're stealing money from me, my family and everyone I know.
You're making electricity more expensive, making electric runabouts less economically viable.
You're putting more people into fuel poverty, spreading further misery around the country.
And you're doing that while thinking you're full of unicorns and rainbows.
The worst part is that it's not even your fault - it is the logical thing to do given the utter insanity of the Labour government that set this lunacy up, and the fatal lack of vision of the Coalition not to kill it with fire.
@Handle - Both are metered, both are subsidised to slightly different degrees.
It's a truly heinous scheme, even if you do want to force generation away from fossil fuels.
By paying the 43.3p for all generation, plus 3.1p on anything exported, this means that the 'real cost' of PV electricity is truly astounding.
Let's say that on average you use 90% of the generation and export 10%.
This means you'll get 43.3p generation plus 0.31p export tariff, a total of 43.61p per mean generated kWh.
You're only putting 0.1 kWh onto the Grid, which means *everyone else* is paying you an astounding 436.1p per Grid kWh.
Now the other way of looking at it is to say that you are part of the grid. That way, you are being paid between 43.3p and 46.4p per kWh, depending on how much you export.
Eitehr way, could you afford to pay that much for your electricity?
Slight correction- the FIT pays for everything you generate, not just the "Surplus"
You get paid the generation tariff of 43.3p for every kWh of electricity you *generate*, regardless of whether you use that yourself or not. (<4kW systems)
The Surplus (export tariff) is paid at an *additional* 3.1p per kWh on top of the generation rate.
See - it's even worse than you thought!
The FIT scheme really is genuinely the worst possible idea anybody could come up with.
I give it six months, if that.
Regardless of how good the NFC protection itself gets, the underlying concept is flawed anyway.
Any person could take your NFC card/device and use it without any form of authentication whatsoever as many times as they like before the chip is either cancelled automatically or you realise that it's missing.
On top of that, an unscrupulous card reader can charge your card simply by walking past.
Even a scruplulous one can charge your card by accident because your card was too close to the reader when they turn it on.
So while any individual attack might not cost much, attacking becomes trivial and effectively risk-free to the attacker.
I do wonder who eats the cost of a reversed RFID transaction. (Obviously the consumer does eventually in terms of higher prices/bank charges)
There's a lot of people who use the Outlook client with a generic POP3 mailserver. Everything aside from email only exists on their computer - no contacts etc.
A lot of those don't have a Windows Live account and don't want to have one associated with their email - they just want their phone to sync to their Outlook.
Any product with "Pro" in the name is never for professional use
I thought everyone knew that?
It's all pretty much irrelevant now
Meego might or might not have run a set of amazing smartphones - however it is really aimed at the generic smart device market rather than specifically phones. There are quite a few Meego devices, most of them go inside cars.
Symbian did run a lot of good smartphones and featurephones.
Symbian is dead and buried, Meego lives on at Intel.
Windows Phone 7 was very nearly dead in the water before it even launched due to the association with Windows Mobile 6.x, and has received several cuts due to apparent MS incompetence. (I say 'apparent' because it's quite likely much of that is down to the operators rather than MS directly.)
So really, Nokia are on an extremely-high-risk path - for Nokia to survive, both MS and Nokia have to get their act together quickly enough to produce some feature-rich and *perfect* WP7 phones before the customers all move elsewhere.
If there is any smell of the Windows Mobile problems there at all, Nokia will fail.
If they fail to integrate perfectly with Outlook and IMAP, Nokia will fail. (Oh dear - WP7 currently doesn't sync to Outlook....)
However, if WP7 fails, Microsoft won't.
That's the basic problem here - Nokia have tied themselves to a brand-new, unproven ship made by a company with a history of ships that sink. Unfortuantely for Nokia, the captain of that new ship doesn't really care all that much, and is very well insured should it sink.
I thought everybody had this in their house already?
It's called a Building Management System (BMS)
I have a BMS in my home that controls all those things - PIR occupancy sensors, light sensors, the TV remote can adjust the lights and heating, and there's touchscreens around if the remote is lost down the sofa.
Plus some spare capacity for some fun christmas lights when I get around to it.
(I don't have atuomatic doors because I don't want them)
Of course, my job is to design and commission these systems - we drive lights, blinds, SmartGlass-style windows, video projectors, projection screens and interface to HVAC among other things.
The reason you don't have this yourself is probably down to the cost of the expertise to design and commission these systems. They are extremely powerful and flexible, so it takes a while to learn both waht they'll do and how to make them do it.
"380V three-phase DC charger"?
Do you actually mean DC, or do you mean three-phase?
Three-phase power *means* three differently-phased AC supplies, it cannot ever be DC.
According to the Peugeot spec sheet, the 'fast charge' system is a 330V DC supply. That is a *very* specialist supply, and you're not going to get one of those in a domestic situation.
- At 90% charge efficiency, you'd be drawing about 28.5kW from the supply to get that. Most domestic supplies have between 18 and 23kW absolute maximum available for the whole house, depending on when it was built.
(Nice to see Lithium Manganese Oxide batteries in use. I had some of those ten years ago, and they were bloody brilliant. Shame the availability was terrrible - somebody bought the lot of the small ones for DECT phones.)
I'd say the range seems fine for the target market
Commuting to and from work every day, plug it in overnight and never mind if you forget a couple of times a week.
Same as your smartphone.
The problem is that the UK target market is the one that lives in London, works inside the congestion charge zone and has a driveway or garage where power is available.
And that target market is one that doesn't really exist.
The problems are very different
The Grid doesn't really care how much anything costs to build etc. From their point of view:
Nuclear's problem is that it's "best" to run the nuke at approx. 90% max rated output continuously. Thus you need to shunt their 'spare' power into something else when demand is low and pull it back later in the day when demand is high.
Wind's problem is that it will very often flip from 'high output' to 'zero output' without warning.
Thus when wind is producing the most, the 'spinning reserve' also has to be at the maximum just in case wind tips over the top and shuts down.
So you see the issue? It is relatively easy to trim your nuclear so it can sit producing the daily mean, with pumped storage handling the variation. The spot price will bounce in exactly the way pumped storage needs (nuclear station might be paying them to take it away at times).
For wind, we need to have enough spinning reserve* to cover the entire wind generation capacity - and we are only expecting to actually use those warm spares for 38 days each year. That's going to make those spares extremely expensive!
*The spinning reserve would have to hold the grid up until some warm spares could sync, so wouldn't necessarily have to be able to handle the expected >5-day wind blackouts. However the full controllable capacity has to be there as otherwise we go down the rolling blackout** route, which would greatly increase the sales of diesel generators.
**Brownouts are not an option anymore. Gone are the days when the demand was primarily resistive, it's now mostly constant-power so reducing voltage actually increases demand due to increased cable/transformer losses.
No, it still works.
Any user who doesn't go through the landing page doesn't get any cookies.
Still not seeing the problem here.
- Remember, we're talking about tracking cookies here, not the cookies required to run shopping baskets.
The 'restricted' cookies are really those are related to advertisements and web metrics. So, you can only trace people through your site that have been to the landing page.
It might be possible to use referrer to help here as well.
Aside from all of that, if you have a "Do you want a cookie? Yes/No" question, you can be sure that almost everybody will say yes.
@Mattyod?: Erm, no.
Landing page: "Can I store a cookie?"
All other pages: "Is there a landing page cookie? If yes, store my cookie/modify landing page cookie. Otherwise do nothing."
That's not exactly rocket science, is it?
The law is phrased as "Covering your face so you cannot be identified"
So yes, it covers all of the above.
It doesn't cover everywhere or everywhen - I forget the specifics, but it's actually a simple extension of rules that exist in all European countries.
Try getting a passport in any European country without showing your face.
Abject fail there - you might want to read up on what National Grid actually does.
The National Grid is not some amorphous blob that you can throw stuff onto and pull things off whenever you like.
They work *extremely* hard to balance everything out.
Right now, they have a very smooth 'base load' that's basically all of industry and office working - most industry and almost all offices have a pretty stable use pattern.
Then you have domestic use, which is a very large number of very small users who spike up and down continually - however, all these spikes are very short duration, and it only becomes noticeable when a very large number of these users spike together (kettle after Corrie is the usual example).
The biggest *possible* single domestic 'upspike' is 23kW (zero use to 'about to blow your 100A supply fuse'). The biggest likely would be taking a shower or turning on the oven - 5kW or so.
Now, even a small industrial user is in the MW range, and places like steelworks and car plants are in the multi-gigawatt.
Consider what would happen if many small or mid-sized industrial users often (and only semi-predictably) bounced on and off grid at pretty much the same time as their wind power plants took over, then dropped the load (due to under or over wind-speed)?
As their publication says - The Grid can cope with a few of them. It can't cope with a lot of them.
And that's before you start to consider that the Grid will have to pay these wind power suppliers to *stay turned off* fairly often due to the idiocy of the contracts the Government have put in place.
@copsewood: No, there damn well isn't.
You know this if you'd actually read the study you linked to, rather than just the conclusion page.
That study is actually saying "We might be able to build enough pumped storage if we used every single possible location in the Scottish Highlands"
It completely ignores the environmental cost of doing so, the local outrage (you want to do WHAT to the loch?) and greatly simplifies the massive additional north-south interconnect infrastructure it would need, and the monetary costs of building everything.
In other words, it's a typical short study done by postgrads.
It's interesting, and I hope the guys who wrote it got good marks because they do deserve them - but it should not be considered the general 'green light' that you appear to think it is.
Except that relies on *knowing* it's doing that.
Everyone who already owns (rents?) a Leaf did not know that.
Everyone who doesn't read El Reg or Seattle Wireless still does not know that.
Do you see the problem yet?
Sarah, you're probably right.
I'll freely agree that many women who do want children don't want to achieve them through deception, especially deception liable to result in single parenthood.
I'll even give you the upgrade to Most.
However, that's *still* not all.
Several of my sister's friends* and certainly my cousin-in-law's husband's** 'bit on the side' got a baby through deception. Their motives vary, but are roughly based upon the idea that either the father or the state will be forced into providing financial support for the child and the mother.
*She's in a bad crowd. It's tough trying to get her out of it before something goes badly wrong.
** He's a turd, and she was a muppet. She's finally learnt from the mistake, and it does appear that he hasn't.
WP7 does not sync to Outlook
I know that sounds surprising, but it doesn't! At all!
It can only sync to Windows Live or a *new* Exchange server.
So if you're not running a newest-edition Exchange server and don't want to hand over all your data to Windows Live, you simply can't use a Windows Phone.
Android and WM6.x however can sync direct to Outlook.
The people I know who tried out a WP7 device said that the hardware was great - but the lack of basic contact-management functionality meant that it was simply not fit-for-purpose, so they took it back and got an Android instead.
Analysis fail there
Nokia's big problem was that they'd gone with Option 2 several times - ditch the old, make a new thing. Everybody should be using this new thing!
Roll on six months - again, ditch the old, make a new thing. Everybody should be using this new thing!
Elop then repeated that, but this time saying "Our old things are crap, we have to buy a new thing from somebody else"
That kind of tactic is a sure-fire way to alienate the customer and 3rd-party developer base, for one simple reason:
I want to be able to use the stuff on my current phone on my next phone!
Back in the day, that meant being able to copy my contacts, ringtones and wallpaper onto the new one. On a smartphone that means being able to do all the above, *plus* copy my daft games and useful apps onto the new one.
So if I'm forced to lose everything except my contacts even by staying with the same phone manufacturer, then I might as well consider *all* smartphones and go for whatever I think is prettiest and *most likely to be able to keep everything next time*.
It's a really, really, really bad way of saying that you can't have a 'perfect' filter*.
So any RF transmission that is nominally at 400 MHz and 10MHz wide, actually does transmit power at 380MHz and 420MHz.
How much depends on how good your filtering is.
*Theoretically you could have a perfect filter, but it would take the signal an infinite length of time to traverse and require an infinite number of components. Apparently that's not desirable.
Except that Plastic required some kind of proof of ID
Originally a signature, and then a PIN - both of which were something the legitimate owner of the card was more likely to be able to correctly enter than an arbitrary attacker.
PayWave however can be drained by any attacker who takes the RFID unit (card or phone) - or can get *close* to someone who has one with the charging doodad.
Oyster works through most people's wallets and pockets. So does this system.
However, Oyster readers are neither portable nor useful to most attackers - while PayWave readers are both.
Aside from the obvious theft of the card, a 'dodgy' retailer can trivially wave the reader around to collect money from anybody in range.
Except that billion dollars immediately knocked 15% off the share price.
And Nokia are currently down by 20% compared to the start of the year, nearly 25% compared to the February high.
That's what the markets actually think of Nokia's current strategy - NOK have been firefighting ever since that announcement in February.
I'm actually rather stunned by the results of the AGM (3rd May) - I was expecting Elop to get fired, but somehow he got elected to the Board. The next day NOK dropped another dollar.
It really feels like somebody wants NOK to hit rock-bottom and get bought out by somebody.
In Elop's shoes?
He dropped the platform that had more users than any other, according to Gartner Research.
That's clearly insane, end of story - it ensures that Nokia don't sell a significant number of smartphone handsets for an entire year. Feature phone and dumbphone shouldn't be affected directly, though there may be some crossover.
Yes, Nokia probably did need quite radical changes to the organisation - it should have meant examining what Nokia had, and deciding which of the existing assets to keep and which to wind down.
Instead, Elop threw away all the software R&D that Nokia had, their 3rd-party developer base (many of whom have gone to Android), and bought in something else that either has a terrible track record or no track record at all*.
Either way, he bet the entire company on a single horse, owned by another company who will survive pretty much unscathed if that horse dies.
*Depending on whether you consider WP7 to have anything to do with WM6.x or not.
The thing about Science
Is that you don't know what Engineering will come of it.
And that Engineering might be really, really useful and solve all kinds of serious problems.
The LASER is the example of this that gets trotted out all the time - Science came up with this weird monochromatic in-phase light source, and then all kinds of surprising uses for it turned up, like improving your access to pornography.
Off-hand I can't think of any direct uses for recent cosmology results, but that's probably because I'm not at the bleeding edge of high-energy physics or cosmology.
Yeah, there are those other costs
All of which except the congestion charge and road tax apply to both vehicles.
I'd still have to insure it and to service it either way.
Tyre cost is irrelevant as I've not actually needed to replace any tyres on my rust-bucket in five years, so I'd expect these to last at least that long. (The odd puncture repair job, but that'd happen to anything)
Insurance is an unknown - I'd guess insuring a brand-new vehicle to be more expensive than an older one, but that is a guess as the vehicles are in very different classes.
Servicing the Renault is not going to be cheaper - I can take an infernal combustion engine to any garage I like, while this Renault would have to go to the dealership - and probably a specific one.
That takes the cost of a simple service way, way up, so the 'simpler' Renault service may well be more expensive! (And maybe it's not even simpler?)
As to the brand-new/second hand comparison - this makes perfect sense. This vehicle would not be the first vehicle in a houehold, and it's aimed at 'greenies'. What's greener - buying a brand-new vehicle for your second 'commuter car', or buying a second-hand vehicle?
The rust-bucket is clearly greener on the manufacture argument, so the new one has to be green (which actually means cheap) enough to run to outweigh the materials cost.
However, if you're in the congestion charge zone daily, you have a good argument.
So that's the only place on Earth that'd I'd ever expect to see this vehicle.
No catch, RGB to CMY is a solved problem.
You can get a reasonable approximation by using Cyan = Not Red, Magenta = Not Green, Yellow = Not Blue.
The better algorithms take account of the particular bandwidth of each of the specific CMY filters in use.
You'll find the algorithm in your printer driver. Even the really good ones are trivial to process.
That's even before you realise that almost all the imagery this is intended to be used with is stored in CMYK format already, as that's what was used to make the 'real' book!
Woah, you mean colour E-paper wasn't CMY before?
Glory be, those guys with the RGB one are superlative idiots.
When was the last time you saw an RGB printer? Colouring a surface *does not work that way*.
I hereby claim the idea of "CMYK" E-paper.
I also claim CcMmYyK (Light and dark of each secondary colour) and any combination thereof which would give different gamuts at various price points.
This is now my idea, and I release it for free because I want every e-paper manufacturer to use it, unencumbered by stupid patent trolls trying to claim the bleeding obvious.
That's truly stupid
A decent 2nd hand diesel car costs less to buy and less to run, even before you include the cost of electric to charge it with!
Eg: Citroen Picasso, £2000, 11p/mile urban use (real figures, not manufacturer) - and that is with the current 141p/L
Newer are probably better.
Actually, Part P didn't require you to do that.
It is permissable to do the work yourself and pay a council jobsworth to inspect it.
I think it costs about £500 for the inspection, which consists of them taking the front off one or two sockets then ticking the box. If you're unlucky, they'll ask to see your design docs. Rare that'll happen as most don't understand them anyway.
Well, of course!
Given that the report is not being made available until the end of the month, one cannot do anything else.
The linked press release and "Summary for policy makers"* is it until then.
You'll notice that El Reg has looked at the raw data of other sources, and that they've used the figures given in the press release so it seems quite reasonable to note the obvious assumptions that must have been made to get the numbers they're claiming.
*I find it disgusting that they have published the summary for policy makers before publishing the actual report itself. At best that's disingenuous - how can such policymakers check that the summary is valid and not deliberately or accidentally misleading?
Weird and pointless advert there
So MS are now advertising the form factor of the machine as being the most important?
The bit that they don't have any control over and is entirely down to third parties. How strange.
Why do they not mention any reasons to buy a machine running Windows 7 as opposed to anything else - like Mac OSX, Linux or even Windows XP?
Or have MS decided that there's nothing whatsoever about Windows that's worth advertising?
Likewise, it's perfect for conference calls.
Unlike the other 'out-of-office' conference systems, it's not a really, really expensive phone call when outside Europe/US and it works pretty much everywhere, with a text-only fallback if your hotel internet is rubbish.
On top of that, you can bounce a file to everyone so they can look at the thing you're talking about.
We have MS Communicator, but it's utterly rubbish and barely used, mostly because it only works inside the corporate network. I don't know why that is, and it's not worth anybody's time to work out if that's for a good reason or not.
Otherwise known as "The trust has no ****ing clue what protecting data means"
A password-protected laptop means precisely ZERO protection, as all an attacker needs is a copy of Knoppix or other bootable CD and bingo - everything on that laptop is theirs.
That's assuming of course that the attacker don't have the expertise to take the hard drive out of the laptop and plug it into another computer.
I expect that practically everyone reading this forum has done one or both of these to recover data from a damaged Windows installation!
The fact that so many Government departments insist on saying "but the laptop was password protected!" is 100% proof that they have no clue whatsoever and the CEOs, COOs and CTOs of those departments all need to be fired on the spot for complete and utter abject incompetence.*
Of course, they'll continue to screw this up so royally until the Information Commissioner assigns some personal consequences to these upper managers.
*No, I don't think I used to many superlatives there.
That 3rd party made the phone operating system
In many cases that OS was then customised to the requirements of the mobile phone network.
Either way, Google/MS/Apple provided necessary parts of the mobile telephony system to the mobile telephone network.
That's a very cut-and-dried Contractor status - they made something for the network at the request of the network and were paid by the network for it. (With-SIM mobiles are always subsidised by the network to some extent.)
Obviously in the specific case of 'SIM-free' phones that wouldn't apply.
WTF is "Ethical" population control?
There's only two ways - compulsory sterilisation* or mass-murder.
Ok, three ways - you could use forced abortions, though there's a lot of people who'd call that mass-murder.
I'm guessing by 'ethical', you mean "Ask people nicely to only have 1 child". China has already proven that doesn't work without large penalties for breaking the edict.
And we're back to compulsory sterilisation.
Have you had the snip or a long-term (>5 years) contraceptive implant? If not - go do it. Then convince everybody you have ever met to do the same - without threatening to murder or imprison them.
If you can do that, then we'll take your lunatic idea seriously.
*Doesn't matter whether you mean reversible or permanent, it's still compulsory.
You didn't read the post, did you?
Max to zero windspeed does indeed tend to be fairly gentle.
However max to zero *output* can happen very rapidly - the wind gets *too strong* so the plant *shuts down* to protect itself.
Wind gently rising. Plant increases in output. At some point the windspeed exceeds the maximum rating of the turbines and they shut themselves down.
Turbine shutdown is very fast because if it isn't, the plant can be badly damaged and in worst-case you can even get large pieces of turbine flying across the countryside!
- There's video of failed shutdowns around YouTube somewhere. Don't have YouTube access from here, but should be easy to find.
Of course it means they don't work. Please do some research into how the National Grid works.
Coal, Gas and Nuclear plants cannot ramp production very fast (50% output to maximum). Gas and some kinds of Nuclear take tens of minutes, Coal and older kinds of Nuclear tends to take half an hour or longer. Certain kinds of Hydro can start up from 'hot standby' in a few seconds, but they can't be left in hot standy for very long, keep up that level of production and don't have a large capacity compared to Coal/Gas/Nuclear.
Wind is *highly* variable - it can even go from 'maximum output' to 'zero output' in tens of seconds, possibly faster: the windspeed exceeds maximum rating, so the turbines automatically feather and shut down.
So, let's examine your proposition:
Wind is producing 60% of the UK's needs by running at 100% plate rating across the whole country (actually impossible for many reasons, but let's roll with it). Coal/Gas are at 'cold shutdown' (not burning any fuel).
Windspeed rises in some regions and large blocks of turbines shut down. Coal/Gas has to be started from cold - but this takes several hours!
So Country-wide blackouts occur. Parts of the National Grid may be damaged, and many non-resettable big trips drop open to protect generation plants and distribution. The whole system is down for a long time (even days) as repairs and manual resets are carried out.
So we have to keep the Coal and Gas plants 'hot' - burning their fuel to maintain temperature and synchronisation - even when they're not producing any electricity.
Now windspeed rises and blocks of turbines look on the verge of shut down. Gas plant is ramped up, followed by coal plant. Depending on how good we are at predicting that shutdown, we either get brownout or partial blackout for minutes or tens of minutes, or we burn a lot of fuel ramping the Gas/Coal plant for no reason as the turbines don't shut down or shut down later than expected.
Either way, you simply don't save much CO2 but you end up with a *very* unstable National Grid.
That's even before you consider the cost of having 'other plants' with at least the generating capacity of all the wind turbines in the country put together - as there are many days where there's no wind nationwide, on those days you've got to produce it somehow. Or go dark - and going dark is very, very bad for the Grid, and even worse for homes, business and hospitals. (Hospitals will start up their diesel generators and *hope* they've got enough fuel to cope.)
On top of that, the Greens are also pushing for greater electrification of transport - trains and plug-in electric vehicles. If that occurs, then electricity demand will greatly increase - and we're on the edge of capacity already.
Basically, small amounts of wind generation are annoying for the Grid (it's expensive power and hard to balance as it can ramp down at any moment), and large amounts would make the Grid highly unstable.
Storage doesn't scale like generation.
Also, those same Greens won't accept the storage anyway.
Pumped-storage hydro could be pretty high output for several hours.
So where can I build one? Ah yes - I can't because that involves flooding (and draining) significant areas very rapidly and digging very big holes, which the Greens will not permit. There's also not very many locations suitable for pumped-storage as you don't want the water to run away.
Existing installations produce their max. design output for single-digit hours, because they're not allowed to flood large areas. (Dinorwig is declared as 1728MW for 5 hours. It normally bursts the output for short periods to allow other generation to ramp up, and can be used to quickly sink excess generation when ramping down)
Sodium sulphur batteries involve very toxic chemicals. The Greens don't like that either.
The biggest sodium sulphur battery installation is designed to run a small town of about 4000 inhabitants for 8 hours. (Presidio, Texas, max 4MW, max 8 hours). That's absolutely tiny and cost them $25 million.
I've not heard of cold storage meat warehouses before, but I suspect it's similar scale to the Presidio battery installation but with slower ramping. You'd need a lot of mass to store much recoverable energy.
The trouble is that politicians really don't understand the scale of the National Grid. Near-live demand figures are published by the National Grid online - as I write this:
Demand: 39,084MW 12:40:00 GMT
Frequency: 49.984Hz12:43:45 GMT
It doesn't. It doesn't actually exist, see?
The stated 'value' of shares is what you'd get if you could sell them all at the current market price.
However, this ignores the fact that if you did start selling lots of them, the market price plummets. Sell enough and the value hits zero.
If you're a 'big shot' in a company, selling your shares results in an even steeper nosedive of market price because everyone assumes you must know something they don't.
Furthermore, there are rules about selling shares in your own company to avoid/limit insider trading.
So the actual realisable value of said "$6bn" in shares is relatively close to zero.
It's the fault of the Management of the company, pure and simple.
TRAIN YOUR USERS.
That is the only way to secure your system from email-and-internet-borne threats.
If your users regularly do stupid things like just clicking on links and opening unrequested attachments without checking what they actually are then no security software in the world can save you.
Security software (eg antivirus) is by definition reactive. At its very best, reactive protection can only save the second victim.
Proactively teaching your users about security 'best practice' can save the first victim.
- Review Samsung Galaxy Note 8: Proof the pen is mightier?
- Nuke plants to rely on PDP-11 code UNTIL 2050!
- Spin doctors brazenly fiddle with tiny bits in front of the neighbours
- Game Theory Out with a bang: The Last of Us lets PS3 exit with head held high
- New material enables 1,000-meter super-skyscrapers