Posts by theblackhand 925 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Oct 2009
I thought the whole idea of the names was to confuse the market and get buyers to make decisions based on i3/i5/i7 and maybe a performance sticker.
In most retail settings, there will be multiple processor generations and getting what you want without referring to Intel ARK is challenging.
The problem with a unified worldwide spectrum allocation is that either:
a) the allocated range is significantly smaller than what is currently allocated limiting potential uses (check the wiki page for the common frequencies that are unused by all regulatory domains)
b) move or remove existing users to free up space. As a lot of the usage is weather/military radar I suspect the time frame for doing that is measured in decades.
The problem with the acceptable bands is that they vary by country. i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#5.C2.A0GHz_.28802.11a.2Fh.2Fj.2Fn.2Fac.29.5B16.5D
So the issue is that effectively the radios can be used in any country and are software selectable for the chosen country. If the firmware allows the country to be set, then setting the AP to Russia gives more available frequencies without that DFS/TPC reducing your signal strength.
They really need a solution would be providing a way for the radios to work out their location and restricting how they operate
i.e. while I can think of how to identify your country if you have Internet access using GeoIP, how do you do it on devices that have limited or no Internet access or incorrect GeoIP details? And while DFS/TPC can help with restricted bands, they rely on detecting an active channel so if a channel is used infrequently you still have the possibility of interference
And this is ignoring any issues with software quality from manufacturers.
I'm not sure there is any Net Neutrality argument where the manufacturer of network equipment is the cause of the throttling - I believe the two arguments are either it is done via ISP policy (and the network equipment configuration that results from that policy) or bandwidth limitations on interconnects (either via policy based on peering agreements or financiallimitations of not paying for more ports/lines/bandwidth).
You missed the best part of monthly programming magazines - the misprints/errors/missing lines where you tried to debug what was wrong and failed and waited until the next months issue for the fix.
The good old days of copying a non-functional program to tape, removing the DFS ROM from a model B to free up additional memory and then re-running the program to get useful error messages...
Google does have a significant investment in this game - they are rumoured to have a larger existing network than any of the other US providers and contribute around 50% of total Internet traffic (i.e. YouTube), but they have a relatively small number of users for their ISP business relative to the big players.
A costly regulatory fix hurts their potential competitors if they are looking to expand their ISP business.
It is possible to have more bandwidth the the consumers can use, but it generally begins to fall down when:
- you start adding more boxes and eventually reach a point where there will be bottlenecks once vendor slot or port limits are hit
- you start adding latency
- you start adding costs
- you start adding third parties (and their design choices) to reach the destinations you desire
We have had (and still have) networks that deliver the bandwidth they promise, they just happen to be significantly more expensive and most people don't want to pay for the extra "quality". i.e BT Infinity 1 costs £27.99/month versus a 10Mbps Internet link in London costing around £500/month (rising to around £850/month for 40Mbps). This may not guarantee you the bandwidth to the destination you want, but working with your ISP (or changing ISP) may allow you to remedy that for more money....
I realise this isn't a perfect example (i.e. different providers charge differing amounts for differing levels of service - i.e. Cogent/Sprint vs AT&T/Verizon in the US) but it's a significant step up from treating the Internet as a single Ethernet switch.
My understanding from the article was that:
- the government would provide funding for services that benefited the whole of the country (examples given of news and children's TV but not necessarily limited to that)
- further services would then need to be provided by a subscription service
- the current DVB-T hardware does not have uniform hardware support for hardware necessary to support a subscription model
- DVB-T2/HEVC is a EU standard and moving to this would allow the introduction of hardware to support subscriptions as a standard in addition to supporting 4K
Personally I believe the BBC needs to change and has needed to for some time - not so much through the current, apparent political conflict but more due to the changing nature of their audience and competing services.
Younger audiences (16-24) watch significantly less TV content than older audiences across all UK channels and have been for some time as this is beginning to affect the older demographics as well (i.e. 25-34).
Combined with BT/Sky's competition of new series and sporting events, the BBC stands to become left behind unless the change how they deliver and charge for their content.
So, we now have the following WLAN protocols that are unsuitable for WLAN connectivity where there is an expectation of security:
Open
WEP PSK
WEP Enterprise
WPA with TKIP and PSK
Suitable for restricting access to a WLAN network and making decrypting captured information difficult in less than one month (maybe longer):
WPA with TKIP Enterprise
WPA with AES and PSK
WPA2 (includes AES and CCMP) PSK
Secure to the extent WLAN allows (assuming sensible key lifetimes):
WPA with AES Enterprise - should still be OK, should strongly consider migrating to WPA2
WPA2 (includes AES and CCMP) Enterprise
Based on information available from Snowden and other sources, telco's in the UK/US/Canada/Australia/NZ were more than happy to work with governments to install the technology to capture information flowing across the telco networks without having to go to extraordinary lengths to install equipment covertly.
The suspicion is that people are getting into these locations with buckets (or similar containers), cutting these cables and collecting what falls out to take home and analyse looking for state/industry secrets to profit from.
P.S. please great flying spaghetti monster, tell me I don't have to use the joke icon for this....
While these things are always open to interpretation/different points of view:
- IMHO smart phones and HD video killed the FlipVideo market. I suspect FlipVideo was a disaster for Cisco as there was little of real value in the IP
- while Linksys may have provided a useful change of direction for Cisco by increasing the use of open source software, Linksys and their open source violations meant there was a lot of pain involved. Couple that with a consumer market that was in a race to the bottom for home network gear and I suspect this was another expensive mistake as the likely target was improving set top boxes which hasn't been one of Cisco's star performers in recent years.
So the previous owners of FlipVideo/Linksys are probably happy - the employees that didn't get a share of the acquisition pie would be less so.
Greece is about to fall over heralding a new global recession.
The Windows 10 previews are just a cover for MS re-releasing Windows 3 .x as senior management believe that if they cycle back to that, they will get another 10-15 years of success.
My dog just relieved itself on your floor.
It's bad now but it's only going to get worse.
I'll give you a tenner for the lot - you can't say fairer than that...
Exactly - I speak as an Oracle hater (you want HOW MUCH more for your licences and support this year?), but they are still making a lot of money
Yes, cloud is eating into some of their sales (and will continue to), but almost US$11b/year gives you a few ways to address that when your margins are sohealthy.
The threat comes in the form of the telecoms quad-play - broadband/mobile/TV/Internet
In 2014, Ofcom gives BT a estimated market share of 31% of broadband and EE say they have a 33% market share. BT's relationship with OpenReach helps for providing backhaul bandwidth to mobile towers and BT are starting to invest more in TV to improve content provision.
This is largely theoretical, but any precedent set allowing BT/EE will likely be countered by the two main competitors in triple/quad play: Vodafone and Sky
Now for pure speculation:
If it does go ahead, I would expect Vodafone take Virgin and Sky to take O2/3 leaving anyone outside these large players (virtual MNO's, ITV, BBC) in an uncomfortable place.
As for consumers? They will probably benefit from more content (whether they want it or not) but it will come at a higher cost.
I'll take your bet...
Corporate e-mail pretty much comes down to three conflicting features:
- cost. Cloud services offer per user costs that scales nicely with the business versus on-premises solutions.
- security/control. Cloud services rely on international treaties/contracts between parties vs having it in-house under your control.
- functionality. Do you want Google's search capabilities vs Microsoft's calendaring. Or maybe IBM's retro feel of this is how crap e-mail was in the 90's?
Having used e-mail systems from all the major player's in large (20,000+ seat) environments and having seen the differences Google Mail maybe a good fit for UK government
If there was an industry-wide regulation that covered storage and transport of health details then "adequate" would be defined as meeting those requirements.
i.e.
While it may not be mandatory, encrypting your data provides “safe harbor.” If your data is somehow breached or lost, provided it was properly encrypted, it will not be considered a breach of unsecured protected health information. To protect yourself and your data, make sure protected health information is encrypted in any possible location.
In defence of the overpaid rebranding consultancies - the good ideas get rejected by the client and so they are utterly dependent on the account manager taking the client out for an all you can drink business meeting where said account manager has to come up with some "brilliant" idea while smashed out of their skull on booze and coke.
I would however question why said account manager almost solely depends on toilets for their inspiration. i.e. the ideas all resemble crap.
Note: maybe this isn't 100% accurate. Lets just agree on high 90's...
Note 2: maybe overpaid rebranding consultancies don't require defending...
My guess is that they are offering gigabit because:
a) the fibre they are using supports it
b) they can easily get cost effective equipment that supports gigabit and reduces the need to roll out an upgrade in a few years
c) they can manage bandwidth usage via configuration
I don't believe there would be any significant cost or scalability difference between fast ethernet and gigabit ethernet at this point in time. Contention will be handled at the interconnect points with other ISP's rather than at the customer or local exchange level (assuming local exchange traffic is less than 10GbE or a multiple of that.
If I have my maths right...
Light through fibre is usually around 2/3 the speed of light in a vacuum - around 204,000 km/s versus 299,792 km/s). That gives a best case of 54ms for a round-trip between London and NYC and 38ms for Sydney to Perth.
I'd expect NYC-London to be slightly higher (although it is now possible to send traffic without repeaters, I would still expect them to be in use on current circuits and the distance is the direct route versus the actual cable distance) while the Sydney-Perth route is probably accurate based on the distance between the two cities via the A1 highway.
The Autonomy management team, bankers, accountants, auditors are all likely to have contributed to the original value of around US$5.7 billion (which was over valued based on HP's write down to around $3.3 billion) - but HP and their advisor's seem to be the ones that bumped that figure up to US$11 billion.
To pay double the market rate suggests HP had a plan so cunning they could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel. Or that HP's board were thick as two short planks. Possibly both....
From http://forum.xda-developers.com/note-4/general/note-4-variants-camera-sensor-t2901512
"If anyone is interested in checking/verifying the sensor then open the dialer app and type the following number *#34971539#, choose ISP Ver Check. "
Samsung sensor:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2966981&d=1412983672
Sony sensor:
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/10/14/aju9evu7.jpg
I don't have a Note 4 to check this with.
Here are the IDC figures for 2014 global phone shipments - 10% looks pretty optimistic:
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS25282214
OS Shipments (millions) Revenue (millions)
Android 1,060 (82.3%) 255,102 (60.9%)
iOS 178 (13.8%) 116,540 (33.8%)
Windows phone 35 ( 2.7%) 7,782 ( 4.2%)
Other 14 ( 1.1%) 3,480 ( 1.1%)
Price
If Intel can provide a solution that is price competitive with ARM/MIPS based solutions, they may succeed. History has shown that they show all of these wonderful features, charge a premium and service providers choose a cheaper option.
There will be hundreds of millions of these devices deployed and the US$5+ difference in cost between running a Intel x86 and a ARM/MIPS CPU that provides all of the required functionality soon mounts up.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
