Re: Don't the British government have a spare range?
Why sell it now, when it's only going to get more valuable?
That didn't stop Gordon Brown selling off our gold.
2654 posts • joined 6 Aug 2009
Nah, just give it a trendy name: Cloud IP.
As for the benefits of NAT, what benefits are there that a firewall can't do?
Although NAT does at least mean your computer can't be directly addressed at all whereas a firewall means that when it gets attacked it will block it. A rather silly analogy is this:
Well armoured and on a battlefield. (Firewall)
Invisible and several kilometres away from the battlefield (NAT)
Now granted a firewall gives added protection over and above just NAT. For instance it could trap anything - even virus infected attachments or spam email if it's well implemented. But would I rely solely on a firewall? Hmmm.
With IPv4 we can have firewall+NAT = two layers of protection.
With IPv6 we have one layer of protection.
I've been ready and prepared for a while. In fact I used to be with an ISP that offered dual stack. I got everything set up - even my email server although it could only send on IPv6 due to licensing restrictions(*). Then I moved from my niche ISP (IDNet) to a bigger ISP (PlusNet). They had an IPv6 trial. It closed to new applicants shortly before I joined and over 18 months later still shows no signs of going live.
(*)I'm a tight wad and couldn't see the point of paying an extra £10 just so I could receive from Google Mail using IPv6.
The "innovation" will allow 500 pilot users to take a photo instead of punching in PINs, a move MasterCard chief product security officer Ajay Bhalla says will be popular with youth.
Does 'youth' have enough money to make them a target in the first place? I reckon the 'no longer youth' crowd have more to protect and will be less impressed by this idea.
So after all that what you think I should have done is, by and large, what I did do. I did chose braking heavily rather than bleeding off some speed earlier but then I was on my own and knew what my vehicle could do on that road so no harm done. I also thought that if I slowed on approach it might encourage them to pull out especially after they'd apparently seen me and come to a stop.
The only major difference is that you seem to think that overtaking is the preferred option to get out of trouble whereas I preferred to keep that in reserve in the event of my vehicle or the road catching me out. I would always far rather use my brakes that move out onto the opposite carriageway. For one thing there might have been people about and one of them might have thought the traction engine slow enough to let them dash out and cross the road in front of it. At the point of starting the overtake I'd have been relying on my memory telling me it was clear and that's far from ideal.
For another I so very rarely use my brakes in the first place. My idea of standing on the anchors is probably just standard fair for most drivers. I know my ABS didn't activate and I don't even think my seat belt locked.
Did you consider using your horn as an "audible warning of approach"?
No. If you've looked at the Street View links you'll see that the traction engine should have been able to see me approaching for several hundred metres or several seconds. Then there's the fact that they slowed and stopped, to all intents and purposes waiting for me to go past. When they actually started moving it was too late to sound the horn and anyway more important that I kept both hands on the steering wheel.
But you can make a Driving Plan which takes such possibilities into consideration to reduce the chances of you needing to "slam on the anchors".
Well you've suggested sounding the horn but I can hardly do that every time I approach a junction when a vehicle is waiting or I might end up being fined for excessive use. I'm not sure you understand that everything was tickety boo until the traction engine started moving when I was barely a hundred metres from it.
You've ruled out the straw man of driving everywhere at 30mph so what else is there? In fact why don't we use Street View to pose the question. Here's one of the views of that section of road (give or take a hundred yards). What speed would you be driving at this point? And following on from that - what are you going to do here if the Range Rover starts reversing out of the drive?
Now one answer is 'overtake' and indeed I was prepared to do that but I hope you'll concede that overtaking in that situation is a risky manoeuvre. It could make a bad situation even worse and if the vehicle (the Range Rover here) is going in the opposite direction it will block both lanes so you're screwed.
Perhaps you should try joining your local IAM group, you might learn differently.
The answer to Question 3 in this case is "that vehicle might pull out".
And..so what? What exactly are you expecting me to have done differently?
That's a wide open country road with good visibility. Here it is from the start of the derestricted zone with the entrance in question just visible in the distance (not easy to see with Street View but it's past the first of the rightward kinks in the distance. That's over 400 metres of wide open road. If I'd been driving at anything over 40mph I'd still have had to brake quite heavily. Are you suggesting that I should drive along wide open country roads at 30mph on the off-chance that some bell-end pulls out in front of me?
'cos I can tell you now all that will do is cause dozens of vehicles to jam up behind me or attempt dangerous overtakes out of sheer frustration.
Are you expecting me to slow exponentially as a I approach the junction so that I'm always able to stop in time? 'cos that's going to make me look like I'm turning off and people behind will either overtake or the vehicle waiting will pull out.
Sooner or later there comes a time when there is nothing you can do to avoid a collision. In this case I was lucky and didn't even skid. But to suggest that there is always a way to avoid a vehicle pulling out of a side junction in front of you is silly.
And FYI I've been a member of the IAM and I know how they drive along country roads. You would get a roasting from your observer for dribbling along at anything less than 50mph on that road and probably dinged for not hitting the speed limit.
Information: There's a Rally. There may have been signs pointing to it. Presumably there's a side turning, possibly also with signs, bunting, or other clues that something's happening up ahead, so vehicles may be entering or leaving it. More information: Perhaps you can see over hedges, so you may well be able to see the Traction Engine as it's about to pull out.
Information: The rally was over for the day. I knew it was there because I'd driven past it at 1pm on my way to my golf club and now I was driving back. This was going on for seven o'clock and I could see into the car parks and they were mostly empty. The previous 'please slow down' signs had been removed. There is good visibility of the entrance as the hedge is well back from the road. The road kinks right ahead so I could see there was no oncoming traffic.
The traction engine came to a halt as I approached.
The IAM does not teach you to slow down for every side turning. It doesn't teach you to slow down for vehicles waiting to join the road. Ultimately there's not much it can teach you about vehicles who - despite having great visibility of you - choose to pull out at the last possible minute.
I didn't skid. I didn't crash. I moved out a bit to get a better view of the road in front just in case I needed to pass but eventually didn't need to.
Meanwhile on the opposite end of the technological spectrum I had to stand on my brakes to avoid a traction engine this afternoon. He pulled out of the rally about fifty metres in front of me then proceeded along the road (60mph zone) at 10mph.
I didn't have any choice but to slam on the anchors. A Honda Jazz ain't gonna survive hitting a lump of iron like that at 60mph.
They did. A fairly comprehensive (leased?) satellite infrastructure
Not really. I think there was a time when one of the two original companies had shares in one of the satellite operators (Hughes?) but that was a long time ago. These days Sky just lease capacity on a couple of satellites (Astra 2xx and Eutelsat 28 (formerly Eurobird) but there's plenty of other companies do that (the BBC, ITV, C4, Discovery, Nat Geo etc. etc). Selling capacity on their transponders is what satellite owners do. Renting capacity doesn't mean you own or control satellite infrastructure.
I think I'm right in saying that Sky developed the groundstation uplink software used by broadcasters so they probably own the rights to that. They also own the rights (after some legal footwork) to the encryption used for PTV and FTV channels. And of course they own the rights to their set top box design (although they now run someone else' software stack).
Bottom line: Sky do not have a monopoly in satellite broadcasting. They broadcast one of the most popular satellite EPGs and sell the corresponding set top box but most of the channels carried on their platform are actually owned and operated by other companies. They just have an agreement with Sky to be listed on their EPG.
('cos Murdoch is 100 times more of a shit than BT)
Murdoch does not Sky. The old boy doesn't even have a controlling interest at the moment.
There's an add-on being developed that consists of an inflatable arm with a single digit.
What's the power consumption like? My Fit-PC is a twin core Atom unit with 4GB of RAM and consumes less than 5w under mail server load. Computing performance isn't everything ;)
Nowhere in that BT press release does it say the level of investment in g.fast, so £3bn is greater than "unknown"
If the article was in the Financial Times you might have a point but the rest of the article goes on to mention the number of properties being passed in various locations. I think it's pretty obvious that the main thrust of the article is how many more people are going to benefit from VM's network. That is after all the thing most of us are interested in - whether it costs £3b or £3 doesn't matter to most of us.
VM are going to cover an extra 10% of the UK. BT say they are going to cover 'most' of the country. I think we can all agree that 'most' is significantly larger than 10% ;)
Note that I'm not knocking VM's expansion plans. I thought it sounded good when I first heard about it and I still do. More competition in the retail market can only be a good thing and physical competition in the local loop is best of all. Maybe the increased VM presence will give Ofcom cause to step in and force VM to create a wholesale product.
No my complaint here is the El Reg article itself. It smacks far too much of being a dressed up press release and I expect more from El Reg than that.
The £3bn programme significantly larger than anything planned by BT
"G.fast will help BT deliver ultrafast speeds of up to 500Mbps to most of the UK within a decade. Deployment will start in 2016/17, subject to the pilots being successful. "
Virgin offers a 152Mbps service, and we’ve also seen high speed availability offered recently by AQL, Gigaclear and Wightfibre.
And BT offer a 330/30 service in select areas.
Was this an El Reg article or just a reprint of a VM press release?
Or get an electric shower. That way it doesn't matter what people are doing with the other taps ;)
Anyway back on the main topic I have a Honeywell thermostat with 7-day/6 period programming and optimum start. It cost me about £50 just over ten years ago. And unlike the Nest earlier this year it handles DST switchover just fine. Especially since I added the optional RTC module.
It has a very specific function, coded into the Windows UI and should be automatically understood by every program using said UI - which is pretty much every application ever written for Windows.
Sadly not. Whoever writes the GUI application still needs to choose to respond to the key. In WinForms for instance you have to choose to specify which button is the cancel button. A lot of developers either don't know or don't care about accelerator keys or assume that everyone else can only control Windows using the mouse. There's also an accept button for Enter/Return..
A well written Windows application doesn't require the user to use a mouse. Sadly increasing numbers today fail that test :(
Perhaps more importantly it's the accelerator key for the 'Cancel' button. In a properly written application that is.
When BT was sold for a fraction of its value this included all the existing infrastructue and rights over all the cable tunnels but only after the tax papers had finished paying for conversion to latest digital exchanges
I think you're timescales are wrong there. The PO did start the digital exchange roll-out and BT was doing while still government owned but most of it was completed after BT had been floated. In addition how many properties have been built since the early 80s? All those ducts were paid for by BT. I suspect (though I'm not sure) that that would be the majority of them since placing telephone cables in ducts is a relatively new thing. I would expect that the majority of local cables on the PO network were on poles.
Digital exchange programme. Note my emphasis.
"During the 1980s and 1990s the TXE and TXK families of electronic and electromechanical exchanges were gradually replaced with System X and System Y digital exchanges in a £20 billion investment programme. The last TXE2 exchanges (Ballycastle, Northern Ireland, Llandovery, Wales and Ramsbury, England) were closed on 23 June 1995. The last TXK crossbar exchange, at Droitwich, was withdrawn in 1994.
The UK network became totally digital on 11 March 1998 with the closure of the last electronic TXE4 exchanges at Leigh-on-Sea and Selby and their conversion to System Y (AXE 10) and System X respectively."
I'm sick and tired of people dragging the old PO into discussions on BT. BT has been an independant company for over 30 years now. Judge it on it's own record, warts and all. The PO is gone, extinct and no longer relevant.
BT paid for all their fibre as well. I doubt anything mentioned in this article existed on the original Post Office network. And even if it did (and it'd be a very small %ge of leased lines that were in use in 70s compared to now) BT was floated on the stock market so it's BT's shareholders past and present who have funded it.
The reason why VM has not been asked to open up its network (as of the last time Ofcom reviewed it (warning:PDF and bureaucracy), which they do) is because VM are not considered to achieved market dominance. Not even in the areas where they operate.
"Given that we believe Virgin Media is unlikely to rapidly expand its coverage within exchange areas in response to changing competitive conditions, and the threshold we use does not substantially impact our market definition in terms of allocation of exchanges across markets, we propose to retain the 65% threshold that we used in 2010"
As I said in another reply a few weeks ago. I decline to comment on why even in areas where VM cable is available they have failed to achieve market dominance.
You mean 'One part of BT has been chasing down issues in another part of BT since January'
Chinese walls, dear boy :)
They do finally seem to be on top of it but it's taken far too long really. So for the first 10 months of my contract I got full speed 24/7/52. Then nearly six months of slightly naff speeds (single threaded only quelle surprise) for six months at peak hours. Now it seems like I'm back to full speed 24/7/52.
To be fair if they can keep that going again it's a damn fine result from a budget, mass market, ISP.
I didn't jump ship because I didn't really need the speed. It was the engineer in me who objected to seeing a drop in performance and the apparent inability of those responsible to fix it in a timely manner.
I wonder what kind of measurement will be accepted here. For connection speed there's the BT tester but as another commentard has already pointed out moving ISP is unlikely to fix that unless you're moving to a different technology such as FTTC to cable.
For congestion problems (the kind that changing ISPs can(*) fix)..hmmm.
Are ISPs going to be required to provide an official tester hosted on their servers? And really what does that prove given that most of us access data that is outside our ISP's network. Your link into your ISP might be fine but if your ISP's peer transits are running hot you could still be suffering poor service.
An approved speedtester outside your ISP's network? Oh yeah, like that's going to float. Are we really going to be let out of our contract for free just because our connection to a server on some other ISP's network is playing up? Personally I find that the TBB tester is the best indicator of performance but they have no affiliation to any of the ISPs I've used and they also don't host anything I actually want to access so again the throughput I get from that is irrelevant in practice.
(*)Although they could be in the wholesale provider. Plusnet has apparently been chasing down issues in the BTw network since January. Switching ISPs there might not fix the issue either. And anyway who is responsible if your ISP's wholesale provider's network is a bit borked?
30 years ago when I was at school I used to play in those fields. Now someone has plonked a load of offices and some powerful computing kit on top of them. And the great play area known as 'The Orchard between Honiton Road and Sowton Industrial Estate' is gone and built over. No more apples and damsons from there then.
How times change :)
I really do not understand why some governments try so hard to make things as complicated as imaginable.
'Some'? Excessive complexity is surely one of the defining characteristics of every government?
Does this mean that next time I need a Tax Code adjustment I'll be able to sort it out with a single email instead of three emails and four (failed because I could never get through) phone calls?
No. I didn't think so.
I thought the guts were sealed and filled with nitrogen...
Nope. They've always been open to the air with filters to trap particles. Back when I was in data recovery the engineers would have drives spinning with their tops off for days in their clean room. We even had one on a stand at a trade show for a few days. The trouble with sealing them is dealing with the changing pressures especially comparing pressures in an aircraft hold with operating pressures nearer sea level.
So big deal...people with more money than they know what to do with can pay $250k for a joy ride into "space".
Because things trickle down. There was a time when automobiles were horrendously expensive and only for the rich. A time when mobile telephones were expensive and only used by tossers working in The City. A time when computers were horrendously expensive..etc..etc.
Pretty much every technology starts out as expensive and only available to the rich. With your philosophy we'd still be stuck in a cave staring at a fire. Well, the rich tribal members would. The vast majority would of course be poor so they'd be stuck at the back of the cave shivering.
That's annoying and I agree that Windows should have been more clear about the problem. But creating partition tables and formatting disks probably should require Administrator rights.
Personally I wouldn't touch a hotel Windows machine with a ten-foot bargepole. I kinda 'wub' Windows but I'd have to admit there's too much risk of picking up something nasty and bringing it home. That would hopefully be less of a risk with a Linux box but I'd still not want to do anything on it that involved supplying my own user credentials. I'm sure that keyloggers and the like exist on Linux.
You forgot access to raw devices from the command line. Or is there a way to do that in Windows nowadays? In the same way that I can blank a disk on my OpenBSD machine with
There's nothing in the standard install I don't think but then your typical Windows user wouldn't want it anyway - most of them just don't have any use for it. That the difference between a Windows user and a Unix user and why (I suspect) Linux never came close to pushing Windows off its pedestal. Windows users like the easy life and if they want to take a disk image (if they know what one is) they will use something with a graphical UI of which there are several. Many, possibly. I think most if not all commercial software has the ability to take an image. The default will be to ignore unused areas of the disk but a lot of them allow the user to select a 'forensic' image like DD does. One feature usually present is the ability to put the image back down and adjust the volume to a different disk size.
If someone wants to write the equivalent of DD..well I have done that for both DOS and Windows because I used to write data recovery software. In Windows you use CreateFile() which is the universal 'open a thing wot contains data' API call.
In that article search for 'You can use the CreateFile function to open a physical disk drive or a volume,' if you want the gory details. Note the different paths available:
"\\.\PhysicalDrive0" Opens the first physical drive.
"\\.\C:" Opens the C: volume.
You can open tape drives by using a file name of the following form: "\\.\TAPEx" where x is a number
Once you've got that open you can use SPTI to send SCSI commands using the file handle if you need to get clever. It works on all device types although unsurprisingly IDE drives don't support all commands.
Internally the kernel has a path structure much like the Unix model. The infamous drive letters are actually aliases below the cover with everything being in a folder structure as far as the kernel is concerned. There's a lot more going on under the cover where devices are concerned than most users of Windows realise (or, frankly care about) which is the way it should be. A good OS shouldn't (in my opinion) require users to know anything technical. Same as a car shouldn't require you to know what goes on under the bonnet :)
any time I've browsed an smb:// share on a Linux machine, symbolic links are visible. On Windows Explorer, they look like two completely different files. I also haven't spotted a way to create symbolic links in the UI either.
I'm not sure about your first two sentences - are they a mis-type? As stated they seem to say the same thing. Not trying to be funny - I'm just unclear. You're right that there's only a command line tool provided by Microsoft though. I guess they've just not seen enough demand to provide a GUI mechanism. Other people have written them though.
Yes, but plug a USB stick in, where does it get mounted? On a drive letter, and the OS partition is also on a drive letter. Everything else can be mounted as mountpoints, but you'll always have an OS drive letter (probably C:) and one for hotplugged devices.
True but what's wrong with that? Again I'm not trying to be funny but it seems to me like you're complaining about Windows because it isn't Unix. We all feel happier working with the tools we know and doing things the way we're used to. Do you have a particular process in mind where having drive letters instead of mount points causes a problem? Personally I quite like knowing when I'm working on a different volume and drive letters usually signal that clearly under Windows.
support for symbolic links at the filesystem and UI levels
Could you expand on that comment? Windows has had symbolic links for a while now and I've encountered them while iterating file system objects and when looking at a folder using Explorer.
It's also had mount points for a while but users don't seem keen on them.
Never let hardware manufacturers create end-user software. They are almost all crap at it(*). I don't think any of them accord it the resources it needs so as a result the end-user experience suffers. If phone manufacturers need to rely on their software for differentiation they are probably screwed.
(*)Apple might be a rare exception here. I don't like their simplified interfaces personally but they do seem to do what people want and do seem to be reliable. Contrast with Sony where the hardware is great but the software (and the way customers who try and use it are treated) is crap.
Has someone been egging them on?
Branching out in a new direction.
I twigged to that problem as well.
i don't see how the train couldn't work in the cloud pesrn'ly
It'd be an airplane then, wouldn't it?
Oh be fair - there was a lot more wrong with [i]Space 1999[/i] than just the date it was set in. On the plus side if I remember correctly the Eagles did take off silently so they got some things right.
As a child I still loved the show - but I was old enough to be struggling with some of the plot holes and series two was pretty much hopeless in that respect. A woman who can turn into a bee and fly into an air duct. Um.
I think the opposite, it's demonstrating what a good thing being in the EU could be. I read this as the EU at least trying to rein in various national governments' attempts at eroding our liberties. As demonstrated by this part of the article:
“We urge the European Parliament not to yield to strong pressure from the member states and powerful industrial lobbies,”
It's unfortunate that the national governments seem to be winning the battle but at least someone is trying to get them under control. Who do you blame for that - the EU for being weak or national governments for being evil?
BLE best practice is to provide at last a minimal amount of user ID masking – not too much or iBeacons would be useless to advertisers
Perish the thought..
I think it was Apple iTunes that has the security question 'What is your favourite teacher's name?'
I'm 48 and left school in 1982.