I like it. We need something for programmers. My first thought was silicon ticklers but that sounds a bit too hardware oriented. Compiler jockeys perhaps? Visual Studio often acts like a bucking bronco.
2677 posts • joined 6 Aug 2009
I like it. We need something for programmers. My first thought was silicon ticklers but that sounds a bit too hardware oriented. Compiler jockeys perhaps? Visual Studio often acts like a bucking bronco.
I assume it's down to the use of a universal communications bus. In some cars the infotainment 'has' to have some communication with the critical components so that it can do things like adjust the volume according to engine RPM. For a given value of 'has' perhaps :)
Ideally they wouldn't be on the same bus. It ought to be possible to retrieve that information using a dedicated communication link that only returns a number. But of course that's an extra bit of dedicated electronic gubbins. It's likely cheaper just to stick everything on the bus and let components talk amongst themselves. Car manufacturers will do anything to shave pennies of build cost.
So unless someone can come up with a better reason then HAY ITS NEW! HAY DID WE TELL YOU ITS ALSO FREE?! I
Indeed. That's a straw man argument if ever I've heard one ;)
I run my own email server. a Fit-PC, Windows 7 and VPOP3. It sits quietly on a shelf in my study pretty much doing it's thing without involving me. In truth it seems to spend most of its time telling spotty hacker oiks to bugger off. Legitimate email traffic is pretty rare in comparison to the flood of failed log on attempts and bounced emails.
I've never got my head around the fact that you pay for subscription TV and STILL have to watch adverts!
It's because the subscription is not enough on its own. If you want advert free TV (legally) you'd be paying higher subscriptions. The industry has determined(*) what price point best suits their business model and they make up the difference through adverts.
Another way to look at it is to see the subscription as being a subsidy.
And if you don't want to watch adverts get a DVR, stop watching live TV and use the fast forward button ;)
Other access devices don’t have anything CI, including the BBC’s YouView box. Why would it? The designers conveniently (for the BBC) assumed everything terrestrial would always be unencrypted.
Freesat boxes don't have a CI either (or it only works if the receiver is flipped into 'manual mode'). That was a requirement of the original spec I believe.
"The BBC intends to launch a national free-to-view satellite proposition as an additional means of access for licence fee payers to access digital services, including the BBC's digital television channels and radio services. This access route will be offered on the basis of a one-off initial payment [b]with a guarantee of no ongoing subscription charges[/b]."
I wonder what the legal position would be in that case if all the Freesat boxes became useless due to a change of heart by the BBC?
If it's to provide world-class broadband to the entire UK - you're havin' a larf, aincha?
Depends. How funny is it that we are the 14th highest per capita internet users in the world, and that all our major economic competitors are below us?
Who the hell are they kidding?
or the EU.
or indeed The Daily Telegraph.
"Britain’s take-up of superfast broadband, capable of providing speeds equal to or greater than 30Mbps, stands at nine per cent, ahead of Spain’s six per cent, and the highest in the big European nations."
"Overall, Britain has the highest broadband take-up at 83 per cent of all households,"
So actually, yes, in terms of superfast broadband the UK is in fact doing quite well. In terms of 'bums on seats' it continues to be a world leader as it has been for many years. Whenever anyone claims that UK broadband is crap it amuses me a little because it doesn't seem to be preventing us from using the internet. We have pretty much always been in the top ten (often the top five) per capita internet users.
Although this suggests we are down to number 14 now at 89%.
It comes from retained profits or from additional equity investors.
Hopefully, yes. It's just that networks need large investments and the profit margins and/or RoI don't make them hugely attractive. Look at what happened to the cable operators in the UK. But to counter my Network Rail example there is of course National Grid which seems to do okay. But NG doesn't have the same issues as OR would. Most of NG's construction is just putting more of the same in the ground or on a pylon(*). OR's issues are that various parts of its network keep needing replacing or major upgrading.
But yeah. I cautiously supportive of the idea of splitting OR off :)
(*)Yeah, I know they have also rolled out various clever bits of monitoring kit resulting in the UK having a very advanced power grid but still. It's not like customers are suddenly clamouring for 400v to be supplied to their homes to support the latest technology :)
I've often said that OR should be split off but that comes with caveats.
My main concern is where the investment would come from for continued improvements. And I don't actually think Openreach has done a particularly bad job. It (or its descendant) could certainly have done a lot worse. Truth is for all the whining the UK's per capita internet use is amongst the highest in the world and has been for a long time. Whatever you might think about connection speeds they are clearly very fit for purpose. Whatever comes after it needs to be at least as good and looking at other such 'breakouts' (Network Rail, anyone?) that's far from a given.
Better the devil you know, perhaps.
The main areas I think need addressing are: End-user accountability. The current game of secret squirrels (User->ISP->[Wholesale->]Openreach often causes problems. It'd be far better if we could report faults direct to Openreach. Timescales is the other issue but again if customers could talk to OR direct it'd be that bit harder for them to faff around.
As for Pay-TV: That ones tricky. It'd be nice if we had more flexibility but if that means a true 'a la carte' system then smaller channels will lose out. A lot of them can only survive by being part of a bundle.
Ah but how do you square the first and zeroeth laws of Robotics with the AGW 'debate'? The zeroeth seems particularly troublesome :)
Yeah the weather in winter can be a bit unpleasant occasionally but most of the time it's no worse than anywhere else. But I'm not trying to sell you the entire town as a place to live. I was addressing the idea that it was a bad place to go for a conference in summer.
You have excellent transport links (two train stations, and the A55 can get you to Manchester airport in less than 90 minutes). You have a large and modern conference centre. During breaks you can go outside and enjoy a very nice promenade. In the evenings more night life than you can shake a stick at and you can extend your stay by a day or two and have access to the gorgeous Conwy valley and all parts south.
Okay so you've had some kind of bad experience of the area. I feel the same way about Colwyn Bay because that was my local benefit office during the mid 80s when we lived in Rhos on Sea(*). But you should get over yourself. I wouldn't choose to live there myself (not enough employment opportunities for a programmer and as a golfer I wouldn't appreciate the winter weather) but as a venue for a conference in summer it's a very good choice.
(*)Now there's a retirement town.
It's a dilapidated toilet, the North Wales coast doesn't start to improve until you get past Penmenmawer
Well of course if you want to enjoy the beauty of North Wales you won't want to be stuck in any town. But we're actually talking here about places to go for a conference. Conferences held on estuary flood plains, tops of mountains or in a field are rarely successful.
Anyway you clearly have some kind of hang-up about the place (or maybe haven't seen how much it's changed over the last couple of decades) so I don't think anyone's going to have a sensible discussion with you about it.
Summit in Llandudno (urghh) it's only a slightly above Rhyl on the North Wales shitola resorts trail
I can tell you've never been there then. Llandudno is one of the UK's premier seaside resorts. It's also a vibrant shopping centre in its own right. Go there in the depths of winter on a rainy afternoon and it will still be heaving with people. In summer it would be a great place to hold a conference especially as it has a very nice conference centre.
I don't live there (I did many, many years ago) but my Dad does so I get to visit a few times a year. I've never known it be anything other than busy and a walk along the promenade in the (very frequent) sunshine is always worth it.
So the sort of careful, thoughtful, well informed work that begot DAB, Openreach, and the UK's pathetic mobile and broadband markets?
I have no comment at this time.
Sky don't own or operate the satellites as far as I'm aware - Astra do
Sky channels channels listed on the Sky EPG used to be carried on a Eutelsat bird (Eurobird 28 as it was called then) but according to Wikipedia that satellite isn't carrying anything any longer.
I think Sky also hold the rights to the uplink software/equipment that most channels use and the standard encryption software but I could be wrong there. Either way as you say it comes down to whether being the owner of an EPG makes you a monopoly. They aren't the only such EPG available since FreeSat has one (that's much more feature rich at that) and a lot of channels are listed on both EPGs. The only really unique thing about Sky's EPG is that it supports encryption whereas Freesat deliberately chose not to.
Whilst I agree that it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black, BT do have a point and Ofcom did ask for input for it's next major review. This is going to be a major review by Ofcom so by all means lets get all the dirty laundry aired.
it is not something that feels natural to anyone. ITS AN EMERGENCY ffs.
I've always thought that the standard 'which service do you require?' doesn't help. If you in a vehicle crash and can see bodies and people trapped in wrecks and someone asks you what service you need which are you going to pick?
I know that they coordinate so 'pick any of the ones you want' ought to be enough but still, in the heat of the moment it's a somewhat confusing question.
The assumption of course is that all terrorists are extremely stupid and will talk openly about their intentions
"The dirty man will carry the noisy dog to the park tonight."
No, seriously, he will. His name is Bob and the dog has a bad leg.
Also updated is the map view: Bing Maps now take up the entire browser window, meaning the left-hand information column which had previously obscured maps has gone.
Really - they thought that was an improvement in Google maps? I still don't like that feature.
Sad to see that physical buttons for turning the page seem to have lost favour.
Dumfries and Galloway is pretty quiet too. I'm off to a holiday cottage just outside Newton Stewart in a fortnight. It's only a mile or so from the Kirroughtree dark sky park.
It was quite a shock the first time when I got up in the middle of the night to go to the loo and realised there was no night light for the hall. Then it became a more serious problem because I didn't remember where the light switch for the main light was nor the how many doors there were. Plus it's an L-shaped hall which added to the mystery (and the urgency).
First time in many, many years that my night adapted eyes left me totally blind.
Mine's the one with the emergency torch in the pocket :)
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.
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 :)