Re: Seems prudent
I don't think the mainstream press write ups help things...
The BBC article leads with "Tesla to make all new cars self-driving"
1050 posts • joined 4 Jul 2009
I don't think the mainstream press write ups help things...
The BBC article leads with "Tesla to make all new cars self-driving"
Not only that, but have their been convictions of other people where this data was used in the prosecution case? In which case should they be declared mistrials?
Or is it all stuff to populate our "files"
> They would tell you that they would be paying x per unit, which was quite often less than your manufacturing cost.
I've even heard of folks entering into signed agreements with Tescos then being rung up at a later point and being told that the price per unit is being reduced. The Tescos buyers are no doubt under much pressure to reduce costs, so they've taken up this strategy with the hope that sufficient numbers of suppliers won't question the legality of this approach.
Perhaps it's to be able to say "look how unbiased we are" when asking for a pass to the next Apple shin-dig...
> Re: batteries. Our state has mandated that all new construction (since about 1990) have hardwired smoke detectors. No more batteries.
Err - don't they have battery backups inside them for when the fire takes out your power supply before they get a chance to deafen you?
>Stop reading the Daily Mail.
From my tests, if you can see a couple of wifi APs the Google location resolution is down to around 20m accuracy - without firing up the GPS chip at all.
In fairness, the apps description clearly states what data it collects. As to why - I suspect so they can say more than "a data connection was good here" and instead say "a data session that consumed xMbits of data on a streaming bearer was good here".
Users possibly downloaded it to see their network's status in their area, and were then annoyed by the popup that says "it needs permission for x,y,z and a,b,c", and were then disappointed by the lack of map.
Seriously, how many times does the wheel need reinventing - there are a plethora of apps that do this already, in a variety of different ways. It would be easier for Ofcom to mandate "operators must achieve a specified coverage, quality and capacity across Z% of the country", with suitable definitions for coverage (minimum received power), quality (minimum received signal quality) and capacity (maximum number of call blocks/drops, or some such) and then require the operator prove it to within a certain geographic resolution based on actual traffic data (and not the somewhat flexible radio propagation modelling).
But if the "buffer" overflows, no-one will know how to queue for the next available chair...
From the article, it seems to be some form of camera "app". I think I have one on my phone already, so I'll pass.
Unfortunately that probably breaks their contractual obligations with geolocked copyright licenses. They need to start amending their standard licensing terms to be able to transmit their licensed content to anyone with a demonstrably valid(*) TV license.
(*) for some metric of "demonstrably valid" which will no doubt change over time. The first caveat will no doubt be "you can purchase a TV license if you are a permanent UK resident", or some such
Work in progress.... Not complete coverage of the schedule/catalog, plus not all devices/OSes/Browsers
> Search how cellular channel reuse works.
Then read up on how LTE works and discover it has nothing to do with cellular channel reuse as all frequencies in a band are available to use by all cells in an LTE network.
I've not read the test spec yet, but have been to various industry gigs describing the aims. In a nutshell, the aim of LTE-U is a way of fairly sharing frequencies with wifi. Under vanilla wifi, if the frequency is busy, wifi will back off. Under vanilla LTE, it will greedily grab the channels - thus stick them both in the same band and LTE throttles wifi. LTE-U offers a way for them to share & co-exist and the debate up til now has been a mechanism for that fairness. Seems like these tests define what the results of that mechanism should be.
> The test plan itself is a 51-page thicket of densely technical procedures. If you can find something of interest in it, let us know.
And who said investigative journalism was dead
> Would you demand the same of your TV stations?
Yes - they're called subtitles in the video medium, quite useful for the deaf, or even if you don't want the noise to distract from other things if you're not paying 100% attention to the program. Oddly they are widely available.
The main problem is that automatic-transcription services are not hugely accurate, and human-dependent services are pricey for the podcast market.
> Janine Allis told me that it was impossible to patent.
Hmm - obviously not impossible to patent, but certainly impossible to defend it - more likely she misspoke. Perhaps Janine was not aware that the wheel was also patented in Australia, leading me to believe that the Oz patent examiners either have a healthy sense of humour, or are as useless (if not more so) than the US ones (and others, no doubt).
Ta - an interesting read, and certainly more innovative than the Apple one
I agree with you entirely, but the problem is there doesn't seem to be any packaging improvements in the patent:
a) made of 60% recycled paper - no biggy there, lots of bags are
b) has SBS paper too - again, this just adds shiny, and isn't novel, there are providers of SBS paper from recycled sources out there
c) has a "knitted paper fibre handle", which allegedly makes it more flexible. You can buy socks made of the stuff, so it's not new either. And I've seen plenty of bags with handles made of paper, so this smacks of an obvious increment
d) the top edge is folded over a cardboard insert for durability - seen that in plenty of existing bags
e) it has inserts at the bottom to aid structural strength - possibly about the only thing I've not seen in real life. I don't really follow the paper-bag industry (such as it is), but isn't this equivalent to double-bagging?
Can't find the "diamond O sack" - only an Urban Dictionary entry for "bravery"
> How about proving that the car doesn't stop when it shouldn't?!
Give them a complete list of these scenarios and the test conditions then. I suspect that's why that wasn't in their list, as I'm sure it would be all too easy to miss a few dozen and then Thatcham would have egg on face. They should at least mention it, though, and I bet their fine print in whatever report they produced would do so.
Interesting site - I'd been wondering when someone would come up with something like that. Interestingly their testing methodology is run with an HTTP Post file transfer, which would run over TCP, which has a warm up time, so may well under represent what you might possibly be able to get with a UDP connection (admittedly with the possibility of errors).
It would be nice if house move websites allowed for an actual test result to be included in the sales brochure, rather than linking to the BT checker which abuses the "up to" terminology
>The real problem here is why would it be so difficult to block on device number (IMEI), especially unknown or unregistered device numbers, in an emergency like that, from a telco's point of view? Surely they are doing that all day long from stolen phones or faked IMEI, no?
Checking IMEI slows things down as it's an in-sequence check performed between UE and an EIR. In the case of checking it's stolen or not, that needs to go to the separate register of stolen devices, and even so - why would you be wanting to block a registered stolen phone from dialling the emergency services?
Networks have an obligation to connect all emergency calls, even from phones registered to another network.
The problem here is that a relatively small number of devices can untraceably be used to jam the emergency call centres - although you would need to distribute these phones in quite wide geographic areas to ensure either the cellular network is jammed with the attempts (limited call capacity per cell) and that you hit the target number of emergency call centres.
Just not bothered to try and accurately add it up. 2 wifi ap's, 1 femto cell, 2 dependent switches, 3 dect phones, 1 nas. All on low numbers of watts over the night, so I just rolled that up and rounded gratuitously and probably didn't state units well. Even if I used 1kWh in the entire night for all that, that's 15p
> the gravy train pulled out at the beginning of the year
it was at least two years ago when the FIT dropped from lucrative to marginal
Yes, you can get them cheap, but the feed in tariff doesn't seem economic any more.
The couple of times I've put info in here I get a payback time of longer than the expected lifespan of the array. What a waste of money
> In the case of electricity the programs always show the controller with her hand on the switch to turn on the pumped storage facility it Dinorwic to cope with the surge created by switching kettles on at the end of a popular TV program.
Simple solution there - cease all broadcast tv and make it on demand only (it's probably the end-result of TV services anyway). To prevent any surges in power at the end of a popular show (e.g. Deadenders) if an episode is made available at a scheduled time, rate limit incoming connection requests so that the end times of the unwashed masses watching the show are smeared out.
Live streaming events will probably not be solved this way, though...
>Hmm, I'd love to see my supplier do that.
Mine is EDF
> But isn't the "fail" part there you, for failing to do anything about information given to you?
Failing to? There's nothing that I can realistically do that will reduce my bill by any non-trivial amount:
a) all my lighting is LED, and I still switch it off when I leave the room (hopefully not contributing to deterioration of lifetime of the LEDs)
b) perhaps I can save a little turning off a few standby devices, but they're usually in the low numbers of W per hour anyway
c) the main users of it in my house is the heating and hot water, which is driven by a heatpump and is already rather efficient and timed, combined with uber-insulation there is not much I can do there apart from shivering when I turn the room thermostats down (all living rooms individually controlled)
d) I could conceivably turn off my wifi at night - but the only way to do that for me means my phones stop working. Arguable whether I need them, I suppose, but I don't think I'd use more than 1-2 kW in the whole night on those appliances.
e) will not turn off fridge-freezer! All other appliances are at least A** rated (except a naughty tumble drier, which is a B I think). Not going to use them any less, and running a night-time cycle is impractical and will keep me awake with the noise
Agreed, mileage may vary for different users with different appliances and usage patterns - I am in the fortunate position to have built my house recently, and it's very efficient overall. But I'd still contend that a "Smart meter" doesn't really tell you all that much that will help you save all that much money - particularly when compared to the cost of making and installing that smart meter.
Personally, I think the energy industry would be better served by offering a service to analyse your usage and suggest ways of improving your consumption/reducing waste - in theory what the EPC/SAP stuff could do but doesn't very well. For example, tweak your heating settings, which is probably what would give me the biggest benefit if I'd left them on the default.
> The UK’s controversial smart meter programme will only succeed in saving consumers cash if people are made aware of the benefits, says mouthpiece
They've been bleating about this for ages, but I've yet to actually see anyone mention what the benefits (to me) are. Letting me know that my house is consuming xWatts at time T is not a benefit - it's just another readout I can do very little about.
Remote meter reading is about the only thing that could credibly be touted as a benefit - but even that is a bit marginal seeing as my supplier will let me upload a photo of the meter as a reading - all through their "app" (all very trendy).
> provide space in the home for 19" cabinet
Is this sarcasm? Not sure of the need for this in a small terraced house, and it would probably be accounted for in larger mansions - I'd instead encourage architecture university courses to update their design rules to adequately provision houses for their expected occupancy and use.
For example, from the ingress point of the broadband provision (fibre or copper), send the data-portion to a corner of the loft where a 4/8/16 port switch can be located, then Cat-6/7 to any relevant room (e.g. to where any TV is assumed to go, but you could well further future proof by running it to every plug socket). This will also require power to the loft, which is not that usual for new builds unless the purchaser requests it as an extra - equally not that difficult to retrofit as you can spur a low ampage socket off the lighting circuit.
It would also be nice if a wifi-plan could be produced at design time to minimise the APs you might need to get decent coverage in your house.
Internal BT-specified wiring is a bit redundant now, as you can either get an IP phone, or just DECT from the main socket.
>Running fiber into every home just makes things cost more, because you will still have "some weird adapter" in every house to turn it back into copper.
Some weird adapter in the house like a router? That's what I use - quite handy, and didn't cost more at all.
>Openreach have been supplying cable with copper and fibre cores for some years now for use in new developments. I think the mandate isn't so much the need for a weird adaptor but to simply require those fibre cores to be connected between street cabinet and premises on largescale developments (ie. any development that requires the installation of new street cabinets).
As you say - only valid for developments where new cabs are being installed. These are not all that common except on the massive developments anyway - my last house was on a development of ~30 houses - no new cab for that, and only DSL (admittedly decent DSL, though). Then I built my own house, completed last year. BT (a) couldn't even organise the engineers to turn up to install the new line even with many months notice and the nearest terminator on a pole being a mere 20m from our front door, and (b) would have been hobbled by the local poles only having copper termination points. At no point did they mention the option of supplying combined fibre/copper, and it was not documented in their "developer guides" that they publish.
Fortunately Gigaclear were deploying in the area and now I have shiny-fibre and no BT infrastructure. Cheaper running costs, and a higher bitrate. The only niggle I might have is that there are more unplanned outages than I've ever had on BT infrastructure (2 significant ones in a year, both reportedly due to non Gigaclear infrastructure falling over - which possibly highlights a lack of investment in redundancy of backbone links)
Gigaclear specialises in fibre-ing up rural communities. Admittedly they need a certain uptake to make money, but it's nowhere near "dense urban" in my village of <600. If they get sufficient uptake, though, they do run the fibre past every property there. So I happily enjoy 100mbps in both directions...
Hmm - if the govmt/utility companies pay for it, maybe, but would rather not have to add £10-20K cost to the roof when building a house, particularly if it's in shade.
Start by mandating that all new-builds must be provided FTTP, even if the local exchange isn't fibred up, and connect that fibre point up to the copper backhaul with some weird adaptor. Then mandate a threshold where the exchange is required to be upgraded to fibre backhaul. That will start things rolling.
Then all you need is some policy that triggers the upgrade of an exchange and connected houses to fibre - whether the rural folk (with their current zippy 1mbps) will bleat loudest and therefore get it faster, or the urban folk (citing economic benefits), who knows, and who cares - as long as it all gets done.
The only spanner in the works is the crap management/organisation at BT & Openreach.
But it is fibre to its closest exchange(*), therefore it is "fibre enabled", and you can get a proper BT "superfast" contract.
(*) I was sorely tempted to d/l the exchange location list, then look up each altitude and work out which exchange actually was at the highest altitude (thus possibly being closest to Jupiter, if we ignore the earth's curvature, season, time of day and relative orbital position as having an impact, which they will) and then check it had fibre running through it, but that seems like far too much work to show that BT's shite "fibre" service means that fibre doesn't get anywhere near your property and most tech folks know that.
DL 31Mbps, UL: 4.76 Mbps
DL: 11.5Mbps, UL 1.9Mbps
> Ireland and Apple entered into an agreement - which you may disagree with, and now it is being upended.
> And if Ireland was 'guilty' too, why don't they get a 'fine'?
I seem to recall reading that the €13bn is not a fine, merely an unpaid tax bill.
As to the agreement, I believe the entire argument from the EU side of things is that EU members commit to not entering into company-specific tax agreements, therefore Ireland were technically breaking an agreement with the EU by making this agreement with Apple.
For me, the whole mess is down to global tax legislation enabling "tax efficient planning" which means that Apple can hang onto a huge pile of cash and wait for the correct timings to actually declare it as a profit that can be then spent.
Ours would no doubt throw it away on badly specified IT contracts, though, given half the chance
>Yup, the Law of the Sea. Steam gives way to sail.
Not when "steam" is a ruddy great container ship that takes 2 miles to stop (or whatever). In those scenarios, sail is expected to evade contact or get turned into scrap
...And google maps even update with Waze updates, on occasion - e.g. an accident will have a little "reported by Waze user" note attached to the icon when tapped on. Doesn't seem to happen to everything - but maybe when there's some official notification the Waze tag is disappeared.
> And what LR units do we have for that?
It's approximately a "Republic of Ireland annual healthcare budget"?
They must have gained a certain amount of market from the Win10/Edge combo being rammed down folks throats - all those opportunities to change the default browser/search provider...