36 posts • joined 1 Jun 2010
Re: We could be in a simulation
We could be. But that theory adds no new explanations for what we observe. Moreover, it would require additional explanations, if true. Hence, we choose to drop it. Please just drop it. It's old and boring. Like me.
Great picture - good work.
...unlike the rest of human kind, which acts with selfless, imaginative, quiet humility, content to spread happiness and peace throughout the land.
How 'sensitive'? Not very.
It seems to me that the IT industry will be always be utterly, incompetently, and completely incapable of implementing these subtle rules.
The only realistic way ahead is to "get down with the kids". We have to start accepting that we won't have private information, except that which we keep in a diary, maybe. Once the psychological hurdle is jumped, it's easy. All the Information Commissioners, lawyers and "security specialists" [haha] lose their jobs. So what?
zzz ... sorry - is this a piece of your brain?... zzz
control and actuation are different things...
No. You're confusing control with actuation. Electronics cannot do what hydraulics does. And most car breaking systems these days are controlled by electronic detection of a loss of traction - a skid.
If this problem is the battery, then it should be relatively easy to solve, although the logic of using a battery capable of sustaining its own combustion is very questionable.
If, as seems more likely, it's the charge and management electronics, then it could be total nightmare.
I genuinely wish you Good Luck, guys.
Ok, wow, so it seems the evidence is overwhelming. And you present it so well. Thank you.
Haha great story! Mind you, that's how many people approached Bob Dylan's music, including me. It was that wonderfully awful nazal grind he made - it just seemed to grow on you, like smoking.
It's not an Interweb thing...
This is not an Internet phenomenon. There have always been sources you can trust, and sources you can't. It's nothing new. That's why in science and medicine for example, the peer review "chain of trust" is fundamental. (Of course, it too breaks down sometimes.)
So the Internet just gives us more and quicker, not better. But I thought everyone knew that..?
Re: I remember the whole matter differently
Agreed. It's an odd article.
Also- "Underpowered Intel Atom processors made netbooks useless as number crunchers..."
Well, duh. The clue is in the name.
Netbooks died because the functionality 99% of people want is now standard in phones and tablets - even cheaper and more portable.
Re: Good job he wasn't a diplomat
Since you have "had the luxury throughout my life never to have experienced what he went through." then why the hell do you find his views "remarkable"? There's more to life than being a diplomat. Idiot.
RIP Sir Patrick.
Re: Always nice to see an oscilloscope
No, for real science, it has to be Lissajous figures. Also, the guys have turned the scope towards the camera. Real engineers wouldn't do that - fail on 2 counts!
"Are you really suggesting we should be teaching school children how to program an OS?"
If he's not, I certainly am. The point about the Pi is that a few hundred lines of bare-metal code can make it flash an LED, beep a speaker, detect a finger, detect a light source etc etc. And that is where it all starts for kids. On that simple beginning everything else can stand. Over a number of school years, a complete school OS could be built, and the relevant hardcore Computer Science introduced as appropriate. That's how to teach computing.
We have forgotten that an "OS" can be simple and elegant. Of course, any single board computer could have fulfilled this role equally at any time over the last 20 years.The noise and b'llsh't of the likes of corporate MS have perverted what happens in schools. (And for balance, Linux is far too large and complex to play any part of early school learning. These are tools.)
Re: Why the Denial?
@ Sean Timarco Baggaley
He meant denial in general- the whole denial THING.
And to you:
"Our cover story this week may generate controversy," he tweeted, "but only among the stupid."
We draw our own conclusions.
...W.T.F Wogan?? Give me a f'ing break. Morons. Turing should be there, without question. No one else on that list should make an I.O.U., let alone a tenner. Oh wait...
Anyway, the man now has my vote.
Re: Don't mean to be a bore..
The HT is required at very low power, and easily derived from step-up conversion. 90 volt batteries for HT valve supplies were common for this purpose in the after-war years. Now of course, electronics is used to generate it from the 12 volt vehicle supply. That step-up conversion electronics *could* be valve, in the extreme case. And then you would only require semiconductors to get things going. (I'm not saying I've got such a set-up... but it's all feasible!)
Re: Don't mean to be a bore..
I guess you don't know much about CB. And yes.
Don't mean to be a bore..
...but can anyone point me to govt. policy over what happens when the sh't really does hit the fan? [Pick 1 or more of early AM asteroid strike/ terrorist A bomb/ volcanic eruption/ Resident Evil scenario etc]. Given any national emergency, we know the mobile networks and internet will disappear faster than Jimmy Savile's CRB pass certificate. And I don't have any greater faith in digital broadcast. So what do the people do? (Personally, I'm keeping my valve CB in working order.. breaker break..) But is anyone on this case??
Errr, what? My comment was flippant...
As far as I can see, the forum discussions concern what happens when the file system starts to fill up, (so flash is implied). The article here is fine - it quite reasonably assumes we're discussing flash. The title is confusing, that's all.
I don't see what relevance that link has, unless the world is already more complicated than I thought... which could well be the case!
....is flash RAM?
Don't tell anyone but...
...just because climate sceptics have a setback, or even, ultimately, are shown to be completely wrong, do not for one minute be misled into thinking that means there is no global scientific conspiracy to promote the theory of man-made climate change. That would be a big mistake…
How hard can it be..?
Hmmm, I really think that after 50 years, it's time they had this hovering thing licked. I mean, come on, it's hardly rocket science.
Reg journos and radical thinking just don't mix!
We have a closed system, (well, one input- solar radiation, maybe two- asteroids) and everything follows from that. It's really not that hard - relax, calm down, lie in the sun and think about it.
You’ll get there.
There's a FAQ on Fortnum's website which reads...
"Do you have an Archivist?"
Hmmm. May I suggest the Q
"Why don't you use an IT supplier who knows WTF they're doing?"
would be more FA. Odd how these useless sites are always ASP stuff.
I always take a dodgy iPhone on the plane.
The chance of one dodgy iPhone is small. So the chance of two tends to zero.
"YU55 poses no threat of an Earth collision over at least the next 100 years."
*... unless of course, a friendly nudge by a piece of junk changes its orbit*. Encryption is safe and uncrackable... *given current technology*. Why oh why do they never circumscribe the risk? It's not hard to do.
So wear levelling is required...
in a HDD? Maybe I'm missing something.
Failure modes in HDDs...
are well understood, and by and large unrelated to usage patterns. OTOH writing to a flash cell accelerates its failure, making it inherently harder to predict. Wear levelling slows things down, adds complexity, and virtually removes any hope of secure deletion. It's a bodge to fix a poor technology.
SSD... SSucker's Drive.
Recipe for faster, smaller and more reliable drive:
1) Take one fundamentally dodgy technology. Ideally, this should exhibit at least 2 complex failure modes: i) random failures which exist at the point of manufacture, ii) random failures which develop over random time.
2) Add a complex software layer to mask failures from application.
3) Slowly realise that complexity reduces reliability and speed.
4) Suddenly realise that software layer makes secure deletion impossible.
5) Stop and wait for something better.
...is a much better name. I bet he wishes he'd thought of it.
macho men of "science"
What I find most scary in the debate on here is how people with such a supposedly solid grasp of the science have such utter contempt for those expressing natural human fears.
This contempt seems to be a macho thing: Hey, I understand everything, and therefore fear nothing. Oh, and look at my huge dick.
Those who do dangerous things know it’s often fear which keeps them alive. Brave people finding leaks in reactors fear. But they also know more about the job in hand than anyone spouting their macho garbage on here.
if you don't understand the fear, you're barely human.
Which?, oh you sad little mag for the baby boom generation. Opitome of selfishness and the me me me consumer. When I was a lad, 30 years ago, it was a sorry little affair. Can't believe it still exists. Good for toasters though.
Eh? Am I just imagining I bought a 250g 3 months ago?
holy sh't - Msoft innovates!
This is a first - (if, indeed, it proves to be their idea) - a genuine innovation, clever and elegant. How uniquely un-Msoft. Oh the irony - that it's pure hardware!! Poor old Mhard.
ermmmm "Bangladesh cuts off Facebook"
They got there first.
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Ofcom will not probe lesbian lizard snog in new Dr Who series
- Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
- Episode 9 BOFH: The current value of our IT ASSets? Minus eleventy-seven...
- Too slow with that iPhone refresh, Apple: Android is GOBBLING up US mobile market